Discussion:
LONG review of KRS book
(too old to reply)
Alan Crozier
2006-01-18 22:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>

Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com

When I started reading this book, I was decidedly skeptical
about the authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS), so it
might seem surprising when I say that the best chapter in this
book is the one entitled "Scandals in Scholarship." This
documents the arrogance, errors, carelessness, and even
dishonesty of many scholars who have tried to prove that the
inscription is a hoax. This chapter eloquently demonstrates that
anyone who wants to challenge the arguments presented by Nielsen
and Wolter on the geology and linguistics of the stone will have
to meet very high standards of scholarly behavior.

Other good chapters in this study treat the discovery of the
stone and Wolter's geological examination. The chapter on the
language and runes of the KRS is copiously illustrated with
evidence that the forms of the KRS runes were known in Gotland
in the 14th century; this chapter also includes a lucid
explanation of Easter dating tables. There is a thorough
scrutiny of the Sarsland letters and the Gran tapes, and of
letters and documents connected with the Ohman family. Other
very useful parts of the book are a well-illustrated timeline
for the KRS, biographies and photographs of people connected
with the stone (and some not connected in any way, such as
Bernard of Clairvaux and Jacques de Molay). The book also has a
chapter on the ownership of the KRS, appendices, a bibliography,
and an index.

If the book had consisted just of these solid and serious parts,
and if it were reprinted in a slimmer version with all the
typographical errors corrected as a courtesy to the reader, this
would be a weighty plea in favor of authenticity and an
exoneration of Olof Ohman. Any scholars wishing to refute the
powerful arguments would have to present even more powerful
arguments for a reinterpretation of the geological and
linguistic evidence. In my opinion, the evidence CAN be
interpreted in other ways, but Nielsen and Wolter have
undoubtedly made the task more delicate and challenging. I
gladly leave that job to someone else.

One chapter that could have been omitted from the book is
entitled "My Experience with the Kensington Rune Stone." I felt
a certain unease as soon as I opened the book at this chapter,
for the simple reason that the word "my" in a page header
conflicts with the fact that this is a book with two authors. I
wondered, why not "our" experience with the KRS? This chapter is
by Scott Wolter alone, although he is not named specifically as
the author. This account is interesting enough and could well
have been published as a separate book. But its 138 pages
scarcely fit the description "Compelling New Evidence" in the
book's subtitle. It is too personal and anecdotal for that, and
by occupying a quarter of the book it causes a serious
imbalance. Is co-author Richard Nielsen's experience with the
KRS not worthy of similar treatment? I would prefer to see
Wolter's chapter replaced by a greatly expanded version of
Nielsen's Appendix C, "The Language of the Kensington Rune
Stone." This is a mere six pages in tabular form, with brief
references to negative assertions, countered by equally brief
references to the medieval examples that Nielsen has found of
all the allegedly modern forms on the KRS. This evidence could
have been presented in detail, with proper quotations from the
medieval documents showing the full contexts. This would have
been a great service to any reader interested in the language of
the inscription, and it would have made the book into the
definitive source book on the KRS and an extremely hard-hitting
all-round vindication of the stone.

Unfortunately for the cause of the KRS, however, the authors
have included a chapter which offsets almost all the good work
they have done. It is entitled "The History of Gotland and the
Teutonic Knights" and it is about supposed Templar codes and
symbols. Now, elsewhere in the book Nielsen and Wolter have set
up very strict requirements of any evidence AGAINST the
authenticity of the KRS. For example, they fill a page with
quotes from witnesses on Walter Gran's credibility and on this
basis dismiss the evidence of the Gran tapes as the fictions of
an envious "bullshitter." Another example: Henry Hendrickson
wrote in a letter to Johan Holvik that he and Ohman spoke of
figuring out something that would bother the brains of the
learned, but Hendrickson did not want his name to be used. Scott
Wolter says: "as far as I was concerned, if Hendrickson was not
willing to allow his testimony to be part of the public record,
it was worthless" (p. 382).

Reading the chapter on the Teutonic Knights, I find that the
authors apply a much less exacting standard to their own
evidence. So much here is based on claims which are not part of
the public record. Instead we have poorly documented speculation
about secret knowledge. The first worrying thing is that there
is not a single reference to any serious historical work on the
Templars or the Teutonic Knights, but there are references to
imaginative works such as Baigent et al., "The Holy Blood and
the Holy Grail" and Laurence Gardner, "Bloodline of the Holy
Grail." This is a bit like presenting a hypothesis in astronomy
based solely on some bestsellers about astrology. The claim that
the Templars learned mathematical secrets and esoteric Eastern
religious beliefs in the Holy Land is not backed by any
evidence. To allege that this occult knowledge was subsequently
passed on to the Teutonic Knights is to pile speculation upon
speculation. No facts are cited to support the assertions that
these chivalrous orders were master masons and cathedral
builders. The authors accept Gardner's erroneous notion that the
architectural style was called Gothic from a Greek word meaning
magical. They quote a work on freemasonry from 1905 or 1871
(both dates are given for Pike's book), claiming that before
Jacques de Molay, grand master of the Templars, was executed, he
created four Masonic lodges in the gloom of his prison. Another
astounding but unsupported statement is: "Eastern mysticism
captivated the Knights Templar, particularly what they learned
from the Druids in Lebanon." Here the authors put unquestioning
trust in sources that are every bit as untrustworthy as Walter
Gran. What has happened to their critical judgment?

The authors seem to place great faith in "The Templars' Secret
Island" by Haagensen and Lincoln, whose "premise is that
Bornholm was used as a base for the Knights Templar in the
crusade against Estonia. Their proof [sic] of Templar influence
is in the fantastic mathematics used in laying out the churches,
particularly the round ones, on Bornholm" (p. 98). A map is
reproduced on p. 104, showing a seven-pointed star superimposed
on a map of Bornholm. It can just as easily be read as proof of
the willingness of Haagensen and Lincoln to see a pattern where
none exists. A similar willingness is seen in the authors' own
interpretation of special punch marks on the KRS as a coded
message from the carver.

On page 117 we read: "The Cistercian-Templars are known to have
been a force in the Baltic in 1362." This is not known at all,
but seems to be based on an identification of Cistercians (who
were active) and Templars, who did not exist in 1362 because the
order had been dissolved by the pope fifty years previously.
That little snag is quickly dismissed (p. 109): "It is hard to
imagine that the Templars even missed a beat in Sweden." But is
there any evidence for the claim that there were ever Templars
in Sweden at all? No historians seem to know of it.

Some other claims here seem far-fetched. A portrait of St.
Bernard, founder of the Cistercians and sponsor of the Templars,
is reproduced because the authors read the folds in his sleeve
as the letter M, "an ancient symbol for wisdom." Other claims
are uncheckable because no source whatever is given. Where are
the clams from Klagen [Skagen?] in north Jutland that must have
come with ships from New England in the 13th and 14th centuries?
Who discovered that beaver furs aboard Basque ships 1380-1420
were bailed [i.e. baled] in the Canadian fashion? Why are the
excellent standards of documentation followed in the rest of the
book totally abandoned here?

Speculation abounds in this chapter. On page 115 there is a
picture of a grave slab (G 344) from Gotland showing an extended
S rune with a horizontal bar making it into a cross. The authors
call this "a cross of Templar design," although of course it
need not be that at all, and then ask "Could this crest be
symbolic of the Templar sword and the chalice?" A perfectly
reasonable answer would be "No." On page 118 we see the X rune
with an umlaut that appears on the KRS in the word "läger"
meaning "camp." The authors ask, "could this be a reminder of
Christ's resting two nights in the grave chamber?" Again, a
perfectly reasonable answer would be "No," but the way these
speculations are veiled in rhetorical questions is likely to
influence the kind of reader who believes that Dan Brown's "The
Da Vinci Code" is based on fact.

We are told that Columbus was steeped in Templar lore. Perhaps,
but where is the evidence? A signature of Columbus happens to
have an X that can be likened to the hooked X rune seen not only
on the KRS but also on the Spirit Pond rune stones (confidently
dated by the authors to "circa 1400"). The authors speculate
that Columbus may even have learned of the Kensington party on
his visit to Iceland in 1477, yet the history-loving Icelanders
made no record of any such party, nor did anyone else. The
fourth line of Columbus's signature has an unexplained XMY,
similar to three runes on the KRS with special punch marks. "Did
Columbus see this sequence?" Almost certainly not. Anyway, it
can hardly be called a "sequence," as the three runes do not
stand together on the stone. They appear in that order, but
separated by many runes. And the punch marks might not be
deliberate.

On page 130 the authors write: "There is no mistake that the
Knights Templar and Cistercians firmly believed they were in
possession of supernatural knowledge based on the fantastic
mathematics derived from the pentagon. This was their secret,
and explains their fervent belief in the rightness of their
cause." After a discussion of the pentagon and the Golden Mean,
the authors state on the following page: "Knowing that some
members of the Teutonic Knights used the Golden Mean..." Again
sheer speculation with no evidence, only a reference to
Haagensen and Lincoln. Note also the silent change of the
subject. On page 130 there is "no mistake" that the TEMPLARS
knew all this; on page 131 the authors "know" that the TEUTONIC
KNIGHTS used the Golden Mean. The Teutonic Knights were not the
Templars, yet the assumption that the Templars possessed secret
knowledge which was passed on to the Teutonic Knights is now
presented by the authors as solid fact. It is not, and nothing
can conceal that this is all based on imagination.

I think that the authors have also lessened the impact of the
chapter entitled "The Conclusion" with their Post-Script on the
La Vérendrye Stone. Instead of being a conclusion summing up the
evidence previously presented, this introduces fresh
speculation. It starts reasonably enough by describing the
burial of lead plaques by the La Vérendrye party, as a French
land claim, and the authors postulate - again, quite
reasonably - that the KRS could be a similar land claim. So far
so good. But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana, and this
circumstance leads the authors into speculation once again. The
script was identified as "Tatarian" by a Jesuit. Without
questioning how much French Jesuits in 1743 actually knew about
"Tatarian" script, the authors compare a script from Siberia and
find a similarity to runes. They advise keeping an open mind
about the origin of the stone "because both the Cistercians and
the Teutonic Knights were in close contact with the Mongols in
Russia during the 1200s." Yet the only specific example they
give of such contact is that the Teutonic Knights and the Poles
were defeated in battle in 1240 by the Mongols at Lieglitz
(actually Liegnitz). Earlier (p. 123) the authors mention the La
Vérendrye Stone because, when it was brought back to Paris, it
was sent to Count Maurepas, church warden of St. Sulpice (a
place well known to readers of "The Da Vinci Code"). The
existence of a gilded AVM plaque in St. Sulpice seems to be
sufficient for the authors to see a connection between the La
Vérendrye Stone and the KRS. No attempt is made to link all
these coincidences in a plausible scenario, understandably,
because it would all require a remarkable conspiracy involving
Templars, Teutonic Knights, Mongols, and Jesuits. What is the
point of bringing up the La Vérendrye Stone at all? Since we
know absolutely nothing about this lost stone, its relevance as
evidence for the KRS is nil.

I have devoted a lot of space to just one chapter and the
post-script to the Conclusion, because this differs so much in
character and quality from all the other chapters where the
authors ably present the case for the KRS with hard facts, sober
scrutiny of the evidence, and solid, well-documented arguments.
The chapter of which I am most critical is supposed to contain
"the most compelling proof of all." No matter how many times the
authors use the word "compelling," this particular evidence
fails to compel me, and I wonder how two hard scientists like
Nielsen and Wolter can believe all this.

Scott Wolter commented on a draft of this review and rightly
pointed out that, on page xv of the Introduction, the authors
stress "that there are two distinct aspects to this book": the
factual evidence and the speculation. This was a deliberate
choice, and the reader is duly warned. For me, however, it gives
the book a Jekyll and Hyde character. I fear that the chapter on
the knights' codes will be the point in the book where serious
scholars give up. With this chapter the authors may actually
have damaged the cause of the KRS. They have done a lot of
serious work in their attempt to affix a certificate of
authenticity to the stone, but they have ended up simultaneously
placing a conspicuous sign beside it, warning off everyone
except already convinced believers and the growing numbers of
people taken in by the fiction of Dan Brown and similar
speculative bestsellers about the Templars and the Holy Grail.
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Daryl Krupa
2006-01-19 00:42:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
<snipped as encouraged to>
Post by Alan Crozier
Scott Wolter commented on a draft of this review and rightly
pointed out that, on page xv of the Introduction, the authors
stress "that there are two distinct aspects to this book": the
factual evidence and the speculation. This was a deliberate
choice, and the reader is duly warned. For me, however, it gives
the book a Jekyll and Hyde character. I fear that the chapter on
the knights' codes will be the point in the book where serious
scholars give up.
<snip>

Alan Crozier:
Thank you for this review, and especially for the ISBN.
A couple of questions come to mind:

Please, is that ISBN for the hardcover or softcover version?

In your view, what proportion of this book is factual evidence.
and what proportion is speculation? I ask because I am not
interested in speculation, and if less than 25% of the pages
deal with factual evidence, then it might not be worth buying.

Thanks for any reply,
Daryl Krupa
Tom McDonald
2006-01-19 05:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
<snipped as encouraged to>
Post by Alan Crozier
Scott Wolter commented on a draft of this review and rightly
pointed out that, on page xv of the Introduction, the authors
stress "that there are two distinct aspects to this book": the
factual evidence and the speculation. This was a deliberate
choice, and the reader is duly warned. For me, however, it gives
the book a Jekyll and Hyde character. I fear that the chapter on
the knights' codes will be the point in the book where serious
scholars give up.
<snip>
Thank you for this review, and especially for the ISBN.
Please, is that ISBN for the hardcover or softcover version?
Soft cover.
Post by Daryl Krupa
In your view, what proportion of this book is factual evidence.
and what proportion is speculation? I ask because I am not
interested in speculation, and if less than 25% of the pages
deal with factual evidence, then it might not be worth buying.
There is quite a lot of factual evidence that isn't related to
their professional work. For instance, the book has a pretty
comprehensive bunch of contemporaneous and historical
correspondence, and other historical documents (very often with
images of the originals. I don't recall ever seeing such a
complete set of documents relevant to the KRS anywhere else.

If you have any interest in the KRS, it is a book worth having.
Hell, you might even find the speculative bits fun when the mood
takes you!
Eric Stevens
2006-01-19 04:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
<snipped as encouraged to>
Post by Alan Crozier
Scott Wolter commented on a draft of this review and rightly
pointed out that, on page xv of the Introduction, the authors
stress "that there are two distinct aspects to this book": the
factual evidence and the speculation. This was a deliberate
choice, and the reader is duly warned. For me, however, it gives
the book a Jekyll and Hyde character. I fear that the chapter on
the knights' codes will be the point in the book where serious
scholars give up.
<snip>
Thank you for this review, and especially for the ISBN.
Please, is that ISBN for the hardcover or softcover version?
In your view, what proportion of this book is factual evidence.
and what proportion is speculation? I ask because I am not
interested in speculation, and if less than 25% of the pages
deal with factual evidence, then it might not be worth buying.
Thanks for any reply,
Its certainly more than 50% fact.



Eric Stevens
Alan Crozier
2006-01-19 06:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The
Kensington
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake
Superior
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
<snipped as encouraged to>
Post by Alan Crozier
Scott Wolter commented on a draft of this review and rightly
pointed out that, on page xv of the Introduction, the
authors
the
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
factual evidence and the speculation. This was a deliberate
choice, and the reader is duly warned. For me, however, it
gives
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
the book a Jekyll and Hyde character. I fear that the
chapter on
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
the knights' codes will be the point in the book where
serious
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
scholars give up.
<snip>
Thank you for this review, and especially for the ISBN.
Please, is that ISBN for the hardcover or softcover version?
Soft cover
Post by Daryl Krupa
In your view, what proportion of this book is factual
evidence.
Post by Daryl Krupa
and what proportion is speculation? I ask because I am not
interested in speculation, and if less than 25% of the pages
deal with factual evidence, then it might not be worth buying.
The chapter of which I was critical fills 40 pages. The whole
book is 574 pages. So the vast majority of the book deals with
factual evidence.

Lots of other responses to my review deserve replies, but I have
a full day's work ahead of me (and it's Dolly Parton's 60th
birthday). I'll give it some time in the evening.

Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-19 01:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Just one comment:

Alan Crozier wrote:

<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in North Dakota.
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana. Is this
invocation of Montana in the book?

tk
Eric Stevens
2006-01-19 04:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:10:57 -0500, "t(nospam)kavanagh"
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in North Dakota.
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana. Is this
invocation of Montana in the book?
Pierre, South Dakota



Eric Stevens
Inger E.Johansson
2006-01-19 08:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in North Dakota.
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana. Is this
invocation of Montana in the book?
tk
tk,
As many others I guess you missed when I the other year quoted Pehr Kalm who
gave an other version from Verendrye's words of where the 'tablet' was
found. I don't have the third volume at home so I can't give you the qoutes
one more time but have to address you to the Kalm discussion the other year.
What I do have is a note which stipulate that it was northwest of Lake
Superior. If you remember the time we discussed the plantade trees in lines
it was that part where the details in.
So you are right, it wasn't in North Dakota.

Inger E
Peter Alaca
2006-01-19 08:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in North
Dakota. There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana.
Is this invocation of Montana in the book?
tk
tk,
As many others I guess you missed when I the other year quoted Pehr
Kalm who gave an other version from Verendrye's words of where the
'tablet' was found. I don't have the third volume at home so I can't
give you the qoutes one more time but have to address you to the Kalm
discussion the other year. What I do have is a note which stipulate
that it was northwest of Lake Superior. If you remember the time we
discussed the plantade trees in lines it was that part where the
details in.
So you are right, it wasn't in North Dakota.
Inger E
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-20 01:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in North Dakota.
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana. Is this
invocation of Montana in the book?
tk
tk,
As many others I guess you missed when I the other year quoted Pehr Kalm who
gave an other version from Verendrye's words of where the 'tablet' was
found.
I well remember that exchange from May of 2004. Indeed, on May 5, 2004,
I posted:

"For Peter Kalm's own description of his interview with La Verendrye
(1770 English translation), see:

http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/a...
"

You replied,

"tk,
a good starter but not the full text. Haven't seen a complete English
translation nor did the Library system for Europe's library come up with
such either. In the English text you refer to several parts have been
mistranscribed and thus also mislocated. The French text is far better."

We then went thru a long back and forth about which parts were
"mistranscribed/mislocated" in which *you* refused to identify said
alleged errors.

To be plain, you *did not*, indeed, you *refused*, to use your own words
from above,
to "quote Pehr Kalm who gave an other version from Verendrye's words of
where the
'tablet' was found."

BTW, what "tablet"? Verendrye found three "pillars" written is
"Tartaric".
Post by Inger E.Johansson
I don't have the third volume at home so I can't give you the qoutes
one more time
You never gave them the first time.
Post by Inger E.Johansson
but have to address you to the Kalm discussion the other year.
Yup. I have reviewed that May 2004 discussion on Google Groups. You
should
review it also to refresh your memory.
Post by Inger E.Johansson
What I do have is a note which stipulate that it was northwest of Lake
Superior.
What is the context of this "note"? Lake Superior did not come up in the
May 2004
discussion of Verendrye and Kalm.
Post by Inger E.Johansson
If you remember the time we discussed the plantade trees in lines
it was that part where the details in.
Presuming "plantade"='plantyed'...

Ah, yes, the "lime", aka linden trees. Another of your disasters.
Post by Inger E.Johansson
So you are right, it wasn't in North Dakota.
Um, you are wrong. I was questioning a Montana location.

And the Mandan/Hidatsa/Arikara villages have always been in North
Dakota.

tk
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-20 02:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Let me edit that posting for readability and typos.

tk
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in North Dakota.
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana. Is this
invocation of Montana in the book?
tk
tk,
As many others I guess you missed when I the other year quoted Pehr Kalm who
gave an other version from Verendrye's words of where the 'tablet' was
found.
I well remember that exchange from May of 2004. Indeed, on May 5, 2004,
I posted:

"For Peter Kalm's own description of his interview with La Verendrye
(1770 English translation), see:


http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/a...
"

You replied,

"tk,
a good starter but not the full text. Haven't seen a complete English
translation nor did the Library system for Europe's library come up
with
such either. In the English text you refer to several parts have been
mistranscribed and thus also mislocated. The French text is far
better."

We then went thru a long back and forth about which parts were
"mistranscribed/mislocated" in which *you* refused to identify said
alleged errors.

To be plain, you *did not*, indeed, you *refused*, to use your own
words
from above, to "quote Pehr Kalm who gave an other version from
Verendrye's
words of where the 'tablet' was found."

BTW, what "tablet"? Verendrye found three "pillars" written is
"Tartaric".
Post by Inger E.Johansson
I don't have the third volume at home so I can't give you the qoutes
one more time
You never gave them the first time.
Post by Inger E.Johansson
but have to address you to the Kalm discussion the other year.
Yup. I have reviewed that May 2004 discussion on Google Groups. You
should review it also to refresh your memory.
Post by Inger E.Johansson
What I do have is a note which stipulate that it was northwest of Lake
Superior.
What is the context of this "note"? Lake Superior did not come up in
the
May 2004 discussion of Verendrye and Kalm.
Post by Inger E.Johansson
If you remember the time we discussed the plantade trees in lines
it was that part where the details in.
Presuming "plantade"='planted'...

Ah, yes, the "lime", aka linden trees. Another of your disasters.
Post by Inger E.Johansson
So you are right, it wasn't in North Dakota.
Um, you are wrong. I was questioning a Montana location.

And the Mandan/Hidatsa/Arikara villages have always been in North
Dakota.

tk
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-21 00:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Let me edit that posting for readability and typos.

tk
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in North Dakota.
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana. Is this
invocation of Montana in the book?
tk
tk,
As many others I guess you missed when I the other year quoted Pehr Kalm who
gave an other version from Verendrye's words of where the 'tablet' was
found.
I well remember that exchange from May of 2004. Indeed, on May 5, 2004,
I posted:

"For Peter Kalm's own description of his interview with La Verendrye
(1770 English translation), see:


http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/a...
"

You replied,

"tk,
a good starter but not the full text. Haven't seen a complete English
translation nor did the Library system for Europe's library come up
with
such either. In the English text you refer to several parts have been
mistranscribed and thus also mislocated. The French text is far
better."

We then went thru a long back and forth about which parts were
"mistranscribed/mislocated" in which *you* refused to identify said
alleged errors.

To be plain, you *did not*, indeed, you *refused*, to use your own
words
from above, to "quote Pehr Kalm who gave an other version from
Verendrye's
words of where the 'tablet' was found."

BTW, what "tablet"? Verendrye found three "pillars" written is
"Tartaric".
Post by Inger E.Johansson
I don't have the third volume at home so I can't give you the qoutes
one more time
You never gave them the first time.
Post by Inger E.Johansson
but have to address you to the Kalm discussion the other year.
Yup. I have reviewed that May 2004 discussion on Google Groups. You
should review it also to refresh your memory.
Post by Inger E.Johansson
What I do have is a note which stipulate that it was northwest of Lake
Superior.
What is the context of this "note"? Lake Superior did not come up in
the
May 2004 discussion of Verendrye and Kalm.
Post by Inger E.Johansson
If you remember the time we discussed the plantade trees in lines
it was that part where the details in.
Presuming "plantade"='planted'...

Ah, yes, the "lime", aka linden trees. Another of your disasters.
Post by Inger E.Johansson
So you are right, it wasn't in North Dakota.
Um, you are wrong. I was questioning a Montana location.

And the Mandan/Hidatsa/Arikara villages have always been in North
Dakota.

tk
Alan Crozier
2006-01-19 16:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana.
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they found
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any villages in
the book.

Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-20 02:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana.
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they found
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any villages in
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near Alberta.

tk
Alan Crozier
2006-01-20 06:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
in
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in
Montana.
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they
found
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any
villages in
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near
Alberta.

The book says (pp 229-32) that the La Vérendrye sons headed west
from Fort Mandan on horseback to find the Pacific. They went to
see the Rockies near Pincher Creek, south of Calgary, Alberta.
They planted a lead plaque along the Old Man River, discovered
in 1906 but not recognized for what it was until 1961 (ref to
Parry 1988 in the Pincher Creek Echo). The brothers then found a
limestone column with petroglyphs (that's rock carvings) along
the Milk River. In a recess they found the famous inscribed
stone identified as Tatarian script (not necessarily correctly:
remember the writing on the KRS was identified early on as
Greek).

What's your version of the story, tk?

Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Daryl Krupa
2006-01-20 11:26:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in North Dakota.
There are no such villages, and never have been,
in Montana.
Is this invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness.
According to the book they found the stone
"just north of the present Montana border", in Alberta, Canada.
The stone isn't associated with any villages in the book.
That doesn't make any sense.
The Verendryes got no where near Alberta.
The book says (pp 229-32) that the La Vérendrye sons headed
west from Fort Mandan on horseback to find the Pacific.
They went to see the Rockies near Pincher Creek,
south of Calgary, Alberta.
They planted a lead plaque along the Old Man River,
discovered in 1906 but not recognized for what it was until 1961
(ref to Parry 1988 in the Pincher Creek Echo).
The brothers then found a limestone column with petroglyphs
(that's rock carvings) along the Milk River. In a recess they
found the famous inscribed stone identified as Tatarian script
remember the writing on the KRS was identified early on as
Greek).
What's your version of the story, tk?
Alan:
"Not necessarily correctly" applies to the whole story, above.
The 1906 date is 20 years before the creation of the lead plaque.
There is no evidence that they were ever near the Milk River,
let alone that they found anything there.
You have just caused the scholarly reputation of the authors
to plummet at alarming speed.
They used a local-newspaper article as a reference? Bleah.
Man, they're easily duped. They swallowed that whole.
Looks like they'll pass on any old rumour or fantasy as
Historical Truth.

Here is the real story, from:

http://www.ourheritage.net/index_page_stuff/Following_Trails/Myths/Myth_LaVerendrye.html

OR

http://tinyurl.com/b9pm8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth #1

Louis Joseph and Francoise La Verendrye saw the Canadian Rockies
in 1742-43

For decades schoolchildren had to learn that Louis Joseph and
Francoise La Verendrye came as far west as the Rocky Mountains
in 1742-43. This accomplishment made them the first whitemen to
see the Canadian Rockies.

Later, historians traced the explorers' journals and concluded that
the La Verendryes could not have travelled this far west.
The mountains they described in their journal were probably
the Black Hills of South Dakota or the Big Horn Mountains of Wyoming.
A lead plaque was unearthed at Pierre, South Dakota in 1913 and is
today known as the La Verendrye Plaque.

How Southern Albera became part of the story is as follows:

A box of odds and ends bought at an auction near Pincher Creek, Alberta

in 1935 yielded a similar plaque.
Further investigation revealed that the plaque had possibly been
excavated when a local family was building a new house on their ranch
in 1915.

A local historian knew that a LaVerendrye plaque
had been excavated in South Dakota a few years earlier and
decided the brothers must have left another one
near the Rocky Mountains? The story spread.

Finally, National Museum officials in Ottawa had the two plaques
compared.
The Alberta plaque turned out to be an accurate but smaller duplicate.
Eventually it was discovered that
in 1926 the Great Northern Railway had given away, as a promotion,
a series of the smaller souvenir plaques.
Each it would appear, was inscribed with the Railway's name except one.

That plaque, changed the history books.

This information was provided by the late Dr James Cousins of the
University of Lethbridge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A better source than the Pincher Creek Echo might have been
this epic verse:

Stephen (A.M.)
VERENDRYE: A POEM OF THE NEW WORLD.
Toronto and Vancouver: J.M. Dent and Sons
(1935)


Aaaaacchhh. I'm not paying $70 Canadian for such balderdash.

-
Daryl Krupa
Alan Crozier
2006-01-20 11:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Daryl Krupa" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Alan Crozier wrote:
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
The book says (pp 229-32) that the La Vérendrye sons headed
west from Fort Mandan on horseback to find the Pacific.
They went to see the Rockies near Pincher Creek,
south of Calgary, Alberta.
They planted a lead plaque along the Old Man River,
discovered in 1906 but not recognized for what it was until
1961
Post by Alan Crozier
(ref to Parry 1988 in the Pincher Creek Echo).
The brothers then found a limestone column with petroglyphs
(that's rock carvings) along the Milk River. In a recess they
found the famous inscribed stone identified as Tatarian script
remember the writing on the KRS was identified early on as
Greek).
What's your version of the story, tk?
Alan:
"Not necessarily correctly" applies to the whole story, above.
The 1906 date is 20 years before the creation of the lead
plaque.
There is no evidence that they were ever near the Milk River,
let alone that they found anything there.
You have just caused the scholarly reputation of the authors
to plummet at alarming speed.
They used a local-newspaper article as a reference? Bleah.
Man, they're easily duped. They swallowed that whole.
Looks like they'll pass on any old rumour or fantasy as
Historical Truth.

Here is the real story, from:

http://www.ourheritage.net/index_page_stuff/Following_Trails/Myths/Myth_LaVerendrye.html

OR

http://tinyurl.com/b9pm8

Thanks
The second printing of the KRS book will contain numerous
corrections. That bit might be removed. I know the authors keep
an eye on discussions here.

<rest snipped>


Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Daryl Krupa
2006-01-20 11:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by Daryl Krupa
Thanks
The second printing of the KRS book will contain numerous
corrections. That bit might be removed. I know the authors keep
an eye on discussions here.
Hah. So we are what passes for Peer Review for those guys, hmmm?
Oh, my aching ulcer.

-
Daryl Krupa

P.S.: I still don't know where the "punch marks" are on the KRS,
Alan;
have you come across any reference to such as evidence of intentional
splitting of the parent stone? Eric's description kept wandering
eastward
around the stone: is it possible that all three of the locations he
gave are
in the book?
Also, do Wolter and Neilsen use the term "split side" to refer to
more than one face of the KRS?
Thanks for any info on those two points; they've been driving me to
distraction.
Alan Crozier
2006-01-20 12:26:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Alan;
have you come across any reference to such as evidence of
intentional
Post by Daryl Krupa
splitting of the parent stone? Eric's description kept
wandering
Post by Daryl Krupa
eastward
around the stone: is it possible that all three of the
locations he
Post by Daryl Krupa
gave are
in the book?
Also, do Wolter and Neilsen use the term "split side" to
refer to
Post by Daryl Krupa
more than one face of the KRS?
Thanks for any info on those two points; they've been
driving me to
Post by Daryl Krupa
distraction.
I haven't been following Eric's posts on this, so don't ask me
to explain what he meant. All I can tell you is that the first
page on the geology of the KRS begins with the names assigned to
the six sides of the stone:

1. Glacial face side
2. Glacial top end
3. Glacial side (the right hand side when the inscription is
upright)
4. Glacial back side
5. Glacial bottom end
6. Split side (the left hand side)

That's clear enough, isn't it? And the terms are used
consistently throughout the book

On p. 46 one conclusion is that "The previously larger-sized
stone was intentional broken down, or split, to its present
shape prior to carving the inscription."

Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Daryl Krupa
2006-01-20 13:25:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
I haven't been following Eric's posts on this, so don't ask me
to explain what he meant.
Fair enough; I was just hoping that you had noticed some
reference to punch marks.
Post by Alan Crozier
All I can tell you is that the first
page on the geology of the KRS begins with the names assigned to
1. Glacial face side
2. Glacial top end
3. Glacial side (the right hand side when the inscription is
upright)
4. Glacial back side
5. Glacial bottom end
6. Split side (the left hand side)
That's clear enough, isn't it?
No, sorry, it's not.
That list seems to imply that only the left hand side has not been
marked by glacial scratching.
I was under the impression that the front face, at least, was
unglaciated, so "Glacial face side" is Greek to me.
I can't imagine why 5 of 6 sides would be described as being
"glacial", unless those 5 sides all show some scratch marks that are
not so evident on the split side.
That list seems to show a questionable understanding of
the meaning of the word "glacial" when applied to stone surfaces.
It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me when compared to
the pictures I've seen and the descriptions I've read.
Could we be seeing another embedded assumption, i.e. that
only the split side could be contemporaneous with the inscription,
because all the other sides are at least 12,000 years old?
That assumption would certainly simplify the argument for
investigating the weathering on the split side only, but I can't see
a good reason to claim that the split side is the only unglaciated
side.
Can you, please?
Post by Alan Crozier
And the terms are used
consistently throughout the book
Yabbut, Eric quoted a passage (from p. 23) that had
a different name for the front face: "the face side".
Would you know what is the difference between
"Glacial face side" and just plain "face side"?
And if there is none, can you see a reason for that inconsistency?
Post by Alan Crozier
On p. 46 one conclusion is that "The previously larger-sized
stone was intentional broken down, or split, to its present
shape prior to carving the inscription."
Do they give any factual support for that conclusion, please,
or is it just throw out as a "given"?

Thanx again,
Daryl Krupa
Alan Crozier
2006-01-20 14:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
I haven't been following Eric's posts on this, so don't ask
me
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
to explain what he meant.
Fair enough; I was just hoping that you had noticed some
reference to punch marks.
Post by Alan Crozier
All I can tell you is that the first
page on the geology of the KRS begins with the names
assigned to
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
1. Glacial face side
2. Glacial top end
3. Glacial side (the right hand side when the inscription is
upright)
4. Glacial back side
5. Glacial bottom end
6. Split side (the left hand side)
That's clear enough, isn't it?
No, sorry, it's not.
That list seems to imply that only the left hand side has
not been
Post by Daryl Krupa
marked by glacial scratching.
I was under the impression that the front face, at least,
was
Post by Daryl Krupa
unglaciated, so "Glacial face side" is Greek to me.
No, this is Greek:
http://tech.pathfinder.gr/xpaths/anc_ciliz/106302.html
(a typically garbled journalist's version of the whole story,
describing runes as "symbols of the ancient Celtic language")
Post by Daryl Krupa
I can't imagine why 5 of 6 sides would be described as being
"glacial", unless those 5 sides all show some scratch marks
that are
Post by Daryl Krupa
not so evident on the split side.
That list seems to show a questionable understanding of
the meaning of the word "glacial" when applied to stone
surfaces.
Post by Daryl Krupa
It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me when compared to
the pictures I've seen and the descriptions I've read.
Could we be seeing another embedded assumption, i.e. that
only the split side could be contemporaneous with the
inscription,
Post by Daryl Krupa
because all the other sides are at least 12,000 years old?
That assumption would certainly simplify the argument for
investigating the weathering on the split side only, but I
can't see
Post by Daryl Krupa
a good reason to claim that the split side is the only
unglaciated
Post by Daryl Krupa
side.
Can you, please?
I know zilch about geology, so I can't help explain what a
geologist is trying to say. Perhaps Scott himself could respond
on this one.
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
And the terms are used
consistently throughout the book
Yabbut, Eric quoted a passage (from p. 23) that had
a different name for the front face: "the face side".
Would you know what is the difference between
"Glacial face side" and just plain "face side"?
And if there is none, can you see a reason for that
inconsistency?

It must be considered acceptable to abbreviate "glacial face
side" to "face side" now and again.
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
On p. 46 one conclusion is that "The previously larger-sized
stone was intentional broken down, or split, to its present
shape prior to carving the inscription."
Do they give any factual support for that conclusion,
please,
Post by Daryl Krupa
or is it just throw out as a "given"?
That was the conclusion. On page 33 we read the interpretation:
"Numerous indentations and curved fractures along the split side
... indicate purposeful impacts ... which suggest that the stone
was first marked where an intentional break was planned. The
stone was then broken off with a single, powerful blow along
this impact plane, prior to the inscription being carved."

Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Peter Alaca
2006-01-20 16:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
I haven't been following Eric's posts on this, so don't ask me
to explain what he meant.
Fair enough; I was just hoping that you had noticed some
reference to punch marks.
Post by Alan Crozier
All I can tell you is that the first
page on the geology of the KRS begins with the names assigned to
1. Glacial face side
2. Glacial top end
3. Glacial side (the right hand side when the inscription is
upright)
4. Glacial back side
5. Glacial bottom end
6. Split side (the left hand side)
That's clear enough, isn't it?
No, sorry, it's not.
That list seems to imply that only the left hand side has not been
marked by glacial scratching.
I was under the impression that the front face, at least, was
unglaciated, so "Glacial face side" is Greek to me.
I can't imagine why 5 of 6 sides would be described as being
"glacial", unless those 5 sides all show some scratch marks that are
not so evident on the split side.
That list seems to show a questionable understanding of
the meaning of the word "glacial" when applied to stone surfaces.
It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me when compared to
the pictures I've seen and the descriptions I've read.
Could we be seeing another embedded assumption, i.e. that
only the split side could be contemporaneous with the inscription,
because all the other sides are at least 12,000 years old?
That assumption would certainly simplify the argument for
investigating the weathering on the split side only, but I can't see
a good reason to claim that the split side is the only unglaciated
side.
It contradicts Wolter's observation that the weathering
of the surface is the same as the inscription, unless he
meant the inscribed left side.

What I can see on the photos is that the left side has a
rougher surface than the front, and that the left back corner
(the one below the inscription on the left side, if you
understand what I mean) is much more irregular than the
top (the left front corner). But I cannot regognise punchmarks.
--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°
Daryl Krupa
2006-01-21 09:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by Peter Alaca
Post by Daryl Krupa
Could we be seeing another embedded assumption, i.e. that
only the split side could be contemporaneous with the inscription,
because all the other sides are at least 12,000 years old?
That assumption would certainly simplify the argument for
investigating the weathering on the split side only, but I can't see
a good reason to claim that the split side is the only unglaciated
side.
It contradicts Wolter's observation that the weathering
of the surface is the same as the inscription, unless he
meant the inscribed left side.
Peter:
The general impression I got from Eric's exposition was that
yes, Wolter was comparing the lefthand side to
the un-re-tooled parts of the inscription on that lefthand side.
The re-tooled parts of the inscription are younger, and
it seems that every other part of the KRS predates
the cessation of the last glacial movement in the area
(i.e., the remainder is more than 12,000 years old).
That would mean that he is considering only three possible
categories of weathering characteristics in regard to the KRS:
1) surfaces that were in existence before the cessation of the
last glacial movement in the area;
2) surfaces created at the time that the inscription was carved;
3) surfaces created at the end of the 19th Century C.E. or later.
This categorisation scheme may or may not be appropriate,
but the argumentation for the specific rationales behind the
adoption of this scheme, and also behind the assignment of
various parts of the KRS to the different categories, as provided
in this forum thus far, is weak and unconvincing.
Post by Peter Alaca
What I can see on the photos is that the left side has a
rougher surface than the front, and that the left back corner
(the one below the inscription on the left side, if you
understand what I mean) is much more irregular than the
top (the left front corner).
I'm not sure, but it may be that what you are calling
the left back corner is the lower-left part of the uninscribed
surface of the lefthand side (aka Wolter's "split side"), while
your left front corner (aka the top) is the upper-left part of
the uninscribed surface of the front face.
Or are you referring to opposite corners of the lefthand side,
such that "left back" means "towards the rear, on the lefthand
side", with "left front" meaning "towards the front, on the
lefthand side"? In that case, your "corner" would be what I
call an edge, in that a geometrical solid has sides (aka faces)
connected by edges, with corners (aka vertices) connecting
edges and also connecting sides. In my sense, a cardboard box
has six sides (or faces), 12 edges, and eight corners (or vertices),
much as exemplified by this diagram:

http://tinyurl.com/asdvy

Please clarify, as I am not sure of your meanings of "back,"
"front", and "corner".

But anyhow, it seems your description is in general agreement
with my own impressions.
The front face would be expected to be smoother
than most, as the calcite of its lower left corner
defines a fracture plane, one that would have been
planed and smoothed by underground movement
while still a part of the bedrock, before it was exposed
to weathering or erosion.
If the lefthand side was intentionally split, it would not
be surprising that it was rougher than the front face,
as it would not have been smushed about in conditions
of great pressure over a geologically significant amount of time.
Alternatively, if the lefthand side was intentionally split and
the front face is older than the cessation of the last glacial
movement in the area, then the front face might have been
polished by glacial action, calcite crack-fill and all. If such
polishing could be shown to have definitely have been the
result of glacial action, then the creation of an exposed
front face would necessarily predate the inscription,
but I have seen no mention of such evidence.
Absent that evidence, there is as yet no proof that
the creation of an exposed front face was either
contemporaneous with the creation of the lefthand face,
or not, and there is as yet no proof that the creation of
an exposed front face was either
contemporaneous with the creation of the inscription,
or not.
Thus, perhaps, Wolter's concentration on the lefthand side
in his efforts to date the weathering of its uninscribed surface,
and by logical extension, to therefore date the inscription.
If he could prove that the creation of the lefthand side, and
only the lefthand side, was contemporaneous with the carving
of the inscription, then his conclusions as to the age of the
uninscribed surface of the lefthand side might date the inscription.
He has not done that, and the chronometric relationship between
the inscription, and the uninscribed surface of the left hand side,
and the front face, and the other "sides" of the KRS
Post by Peter Alaca
But I cannot regognise punchmarks.
Nor I.
Alan Crozier quoted Wolter as indicating that they are of
something like these two types
(so long as we ignore anything in the depths of the inscription):
several in a linear series near the plane of the lefthand side, and
the whopping great walloping type that militantly macerates
minnesota metagreywacke with sufficient force to cleave off a chunk.

It is a pity that Winchell didn't notice that they could be
divided into those two categories. His third-youngest weathering
surface category was (entire 6-part categorisation is below):
"
3. Edge face, which has not been engraved, but was apparently
dressed by a rough bush-hammering
"
That is a description of something other than the lefthand side,
which has been engraved, so it seems that Winchell's marks of
"rough bush-hammering" apply to some other surface, probably
the opposite side, i.e. the righthand side.
Wolter seems to have decided that Winchell was wrong to
characterise what he saw as "rough bush-hammering",
because it would have been seen on what Wolter describes
as a "glacial" surface, so that what Winchell called
"rough bush-hammering" would have to predate the inscription
by a wide margin, and could not possibly be contemporaneous
with Wolter's "punch marks".
Instead, Wolter is referring to some other evidence of hammering,
on or near the (engraved) lefthand "split side", and disagrees with
Winchell when Winchell indicates that an unengraved face looks
younger than the inscription, because according to Wolter
any such unengraved face must be at least 12,000 years old.
But hey, nobody knows more about this subject that Wolter,
so we have to believe everything he says about. Yessiree Bob.
We sure'nuff do, alrighty. Hugh betcha. He da Man. Hah.

I do wish that Wolter would have accomodated the only other
significant investigation of the relative weathering characterisitcs
of the KRS. That would have been the work of a scholar.
We got something else, instead.

Bored with this already,
Daryl Krupa

P.S.:
Winchell's relative-dating scale by weathering characteristics:

"
There are six stages of the weathering of graywacke exhibited by
the stone, and thy may be arranged approximately in a scale as
follows:

1. A fresh break or cut --- 0
2. Break or cut shown by the runes of the face --- 5
3. Edge face, which has not been engraved, but was apparently
dressed by a rough bush-hammering --- 5
4. The inscribed face of the stone --- 10
5. The finely glaciated and polished back side and the
non-hammered portion of the edge --- 80
6. The coarse gouging and the general beveling and deepest
weathering of the back side --- 250 or 500
"
Peter Alaca
2006-01-21 10:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Peter Alaca
Post by Daryl Krupa
Could we be seeing another embedded assumption, i.e. that
only the split side could be contemporaneous with the inscription,
because all the other sides are at least 12,000 years old?
That assumption would certainly simplify the argument for
investigating the weathering on the split side only, but I can't see
a good reason to claim that the split side is the only unglaciated
side.
It contradicts Wolter's observation that the weathering
of the surface is the same as the inscription, unless he
meant the inscribed left side.
The general impression I got from Eric's exposition was that
yes, Wolter was comparing the lefthand side to
the un-re-tooled parts of the inscription on that lefthand side.
The re-tooled parts of the inscription are younger, and
it seems that every other part of the KRS predates
the cessation of the last glacial movement in the area
(i.e., the remainder is more than 12,000 years old).
That would mean that he is considering only three possible
1) surfaces that were in existence before the cessation of the
last glacial movement in the area;
2) surfaces created at the time that the inscription was carved;
3) surfaces created at the end of the 19th Century C.E. or later.
This categorisation scheme may or may not be appropriate,
but the argumentation for the specific rationales behind the
adoption of this scheme, and also behind the assignment of
various parts of the KRS to the different categories, as provided
in this forum thus far, is weak and unconvincing.
Post by Peter Alaca
What I can see on the photos is that the left side has a
rougher surface than the front, and that the left back corner
(the one below the inscription on the left side, if you
understand what I mean) is much more irregular than the
top (the left front corner).
I'm not sure, but it may be that what you are calling
the left back corner is the lower-left part of the uninscribed
surface of the lefthand side (aka Wolter's "split side"), while
your left front corner (aka the top) is the upper-left part of
the uninscribed surface of the front face.
Or are you referring to opposite corners of the lefthand side,
such that "left back" means "towards the rear, on the lefthand
side", with "left front" meaning "towards the front, on the
lefthand side"? In that case, your "corner" would be what I
call an edge, in that a geometrical solid has sides (aka faces)
connected by edges, with corners (aka vertices) connecting
edges and also connecting sides. In my sense, a cardboard box
has six sides (or faces), 12 edges, and eight corners (or vertices),
http://tinyurl.com/asdvy
"Edge", that was the word I was looking for
when I wrote "corner".
Although, if I walk to the end of the street along
the edge of the pavement and around the corner,
I find the shops.
Post by Daryl Krupa
Please clarify, as I am not sure of your meanings of "back,"
"front", and "corner".
Well, if the inscribed large face is the front,
the back is obviously the opposite face.
Post by Daryl Krupa
But anyhow, it seems your description is in general agreement
with my own impressions.
The front face would be expected to be smoother
than most, as the calcite of its lower left corner
defines a fracture plane, one that would have been
planed and smoothed by underground movement
while still a part of the bedrock, before it was exposed
to weathering or erosion.
My impression is that the calcite is
partly removed.
Post by Daryl Krupa
If the lefthand side was intentionally split, it would not
be surprising that it was rougher than the front face,
as it would not have been smushed about in conditions
of great pressure over a geologically significant amount of time.
Alternatively, if the lefthand side was intentionally split and
the front face is older than the cessation of the last glacial
movement in the area, then the front face might have been
polished by glacial action, calcite crack-fill and all. If such
polishing could be shown to have definitely have been the
result of glacial action, then the creation of an exposed
front face would necessarily predate the inscription,
but I have seen no mention of such evidence.
Absent that evidence, there is as yet no proof that
the creation of an exposed front face was either
contemporaneous with the creation of the lefthand face,
or not, and there is as yet no proof that the creation of
an exposed front face was either contemporaneous with
the creation of the inscription, or not.
Thus, perhaps, Wolter's concentration on the lefthand side
in his efforts to date the weathering of its uninscribed surface,
and by logical extension, to therefore date the inscription.
If he could prove that the creation of the lefthand side, and
only the lefthand side, was contemporaneous with the carving
of the inscription, then his conclusions as to the age of the
uninscribed surface of the lefthand side might date the inscription.
He has not done that, and the chronometric relationship between
the inscription, and the uninscribed surface of the left hand side,
and the front face, and the other "sides" of the KRS
Post by Peter Alaca
But I cannot regognise punchmarks.
Nor I.
Alan Crozier quoted Wolter as indicating that they are of
something like these two types (so long as we ignore anything
in the depths of the inscription): several in a linear series near
the plane of the lefthand side, and the whopping great walloping
type that militantly macerates minnesota metagreywacke with
sufficient force to cleave off a chunk.
It is a pity that Winchell didn't notice that they could be
divided into those two categories. His third-youngest weathering
"
3. Edge face, which has not been engraved, but was apparently
dressed by a rough bush-hammering
"
Note the here confusing "edge face"
Post by Daryl Krupa
That is a description of something other than the lefthand side,
which has been engraved, so it seems that Winchell's marks of
"rough bush-hammering" apply to some other surface, probably
the opposite side, i.e. the righthand side.
Wolter seems to have decided that Winchell was wrong to
characterise what he saw as "rough bush-hammering",
because it would have been seen on what Wolter describes
as a "glacial" surface, so that what Winchell called
"rough bush-hammering" would have to predate the inscription
by a wide margin, and could not possibly be contemporaneous
with Wolter's "punch marks".
Instead, Wolter is referring to some other evidence of hammering,
on or near the (engraved) lefthand "split side", and disagrees with
Winchell when Winchell indicates that an unengraved face looks
younger than the inscription, because according to Wolter
any such unengraved face must be at least 12,000 years old.
But hey, nobody knows more about this subject that Wolter,
so we have to believe everything he says about. Yessiree Bob.
We sure'nuff do, alrighty. Hugh betcha. He da Man. Hah.
I do wish that Wolter would have accomodated the only other
significant investigation of the relative weathering characterisitcs
of the KRS. That would have been the work of a scholar.
We got something else, instead.
Bored with this already,
Daryl Krupa
"
There are six stages of the weathering of graywacke exhibited by
the stone, and thy may be arranged approximately in a scale as
1. A fresh break or cut --- 0
2. Break or cut shown by the runes of the face --- 5
3. Edge face, which has not been engraved, but was apparently
dressed by a rough bush-hammering --- 5
4. The inscribed face of the stone --- 10
5. The finely glaciated and polished back side and the
non-hammered portion of the edge --- 80
6. The coarse gouging and the general beveling and deepest
weathering of the back side --- 250 or 500
"
--
p.a.
Alan Crozier
2006-01-20 22:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
I haven't been following Eric's posts on this, so don't ask
me
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
to explain what he meant.
Fair enough; I was just hoping that you had noticed some
reference to punch marks.
Post by Alan Crozier
All I can tell you is that the first
page on the geology of the KRS begins with the names
assigned to
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
1. Glacial face side
2. Glacial top end
3. Glacial side (the right hand side when the inscription is
upright)
4. Glacial back side
5. Glacial bottom end
6. Split side (the left hand side)
That's clear enough, isn't it?
No, sorry, it's not.
That list seems to imply that only the left hand side has
not been
Post by Daryl Krupa
marked by glacial scratching.
I was under the impression that the front face, at least,
was
Post by Daryl Krupa
unglaciated, so "Glacial face side" is Greek to me.
I can't imagine why 5 of 6 sides would be described as being
"glacial", unless those 5 sides all show some scratch marks
that are
Post by Daryl Krupa
not so evident on the split side.
That list seems to show a questionable understanding of
the meaning of the word "glacial" when applied to stone
surfaces.
Post by Daryl Krupa
It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me when compared to
the pictures I've seen and the descriptions I've read.
Could we be seeing another embedded assumption, i.e. that
only the split side could be contemporaneous with the
inscription,
Post by Daryl Krupa
because all the other sides are at least 12,000 years old?
That assumption would certainly simplify the argument for
investigating the weathering on the split side only, but I
can't see
Post by Daryl Krupa
a good reason to claim that the split side is the only
unglaciated
Post by Daryl Krupa
side.
Can you, please?
Post by Alan Crozier
And the terms are used
consistently throughout the book
Yabbut, Eric quoted a passage (from p. 23) that had
a different name for the front face: "the face side".
Would you know what is the difference between
"Glacial face side" and just plain "face side"?
And if there is none, can you see a reason for that
inconsistency?
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
On p. 46 one conclusion is that "The previously larger-sized
stone was intentional broken down, or split, to its present
shape prior to carving the inscription."
Do they give any factual support for that conclusion,
please,
Post by Daryl Krupa
or is it just throw out as a "given"?
Here is Scott's clarification:

"My use of the term "glacial surfaces" refers to the five
surfaces (face, top end, bottom end, side and back) that exhibit
weathering consistent with ~12,000 years. Only the glacial back
and glacial side surfaces exhibit glacial striations. The
original inscription on both the face and split sides, the
flaked areas adjacent to all the carved characters, the entire
split side (less the retooled runes and the Holand "H") and the
area on the top end in contact with the split side edge, ALL
exhibit the exact same weathering profile that is NOT as
advanced as the glacial surfaces. This led to the conclusion
that they were made at the same time.

"For Daryl's purposes, the conchoidal shaped impact fractures
were observed along the perimeter edges of the split side that
are in contact with the glacial face and back sides."



Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Daryl Krupa
2006-01-21 08:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
1. Glacial face side
2. Glacial top end
3. Glacial side
(the right hand side when the inscription is upright)
4. Glacial back side
5. Glacial bottom end
6. Split side (the left hand side)
That's clear enough, isn't it?
No, sorry, it's not.
That list seems to imply that only the left hand side
has not been
marked by glacial scratching.
I was under the impression that the front face,
at least, was unglaciated, so
"Glacial face side" is Greek to me.
I can't imagine why 5 of 6 sides would be described
as being "glacial", unless those 5 sides all show some
scratch mark that are not so evident on the split side.
That list seems to show a questionable understanding
of the meaning of the word "glacial" when applied to
stone surfaces.
It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me when
compared to the pictures I've seen and the descriptions I've read.
Could we be seeing another embedded assumption,
i.e. that only the split side could be
contemporaneous with the inscription,
because all the other sides are at least 12,000 years old?
That assumption would certainly simplify the argument
for investigating the weathering on the split side only,
but I can't see a good reason to claim that
the split side is the only unglaciated side.
Can you, please?
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
On p. 46 one conclusion is that "The previously larger-sized
stone was intentional broken down, or split, to its present
shape prior to carving the inscription."
Do they give any factual support for that conclusion,
please, or is it just thrown out as a "given"?
Alan, thank you very much for obtaining the clarification.
Does it appear in the book, or is it an afterthought?
<Wolter:>
Post by Alan Crozier
"My use of the term "glacial surfaces" refers to
the five surfaces (face, top end, bottom end, side and back)
that exhibit weathering consistent with ~12,000 years.
Hmmm ... without knowing the criteria that were applied
in order to arrive at that judgement, I must speculate that
only two categories af age-of-surface were considered in
this binary weathering-dating classification, i.e.,
definitely-not-pre-deglaciation because not-weathered-enough,
and more-weathered older surfaces, with the latter category
being assigned to pre-deglaciation time.

<Wolter:>
Post by Alan Crozier
Only the glacial back and glacial side surfaces
exhibit glacial striations.
Perhaps the latter category was assigned the pre-deglaciation
dating on the basis that some of its members showed signs of
having been glacially altered.
But that observation that only a sub-category of those surfaces
has glacial striations indicates that there may be no evidence
that the rest of the surfaces in that category have been glaciated.
Such a lack of evidence strongly suggests that there is
no good reason to call the rest of the surfaces in that category
"glacial".
Such a lack of evidence would also indicate that there is
no good reason to assume that the the sub-category of
glacially stratified surfaces and the sub-category of
non-striated surfaces are of equal age.
If some of the older surfaces of the KRS have glacial striae
and others of the older surfaces do not have glacial striae,
that would most likely indicate that the non-striated surfaces
were created after the time of creation of the glacial striations,
else we would see glacial striations on those other surfaces.
All the above argumentation, of course, assumes that all the
surfaces are sufficiently planar to exhibit striations; the "ends"
are apparently to convex to either receive or preserve such
markings, so it is not surprising that they would not show
striations even if they had been affected by the mechanical
forces within a glacier system that can produce striations.
That caveat does not apply to the "face", "face side",
"glacial face side", "front face", or "frontside" of the KRS.
If that front face surface had existed at the time that the
"glacial back side" and "glacial side" were being striated,
then I see no reason why the front face surface would not
also show some evidence of glacial action.
I must conclude that the front face surface is younger
than the "glacial back side" and "glacial side", because
any striations that might have once graced the front have
been removed, by erosion of the surface, or by removal of
the original surface (e.g., by splitting-off of that part of the
parent stone).
If two of flattish surfaces of the KRS show the effects of
glacial alteration, and one of the flattish surfaces of the KRS
does not show the effects of glacial alteration, then there is
no reason to call that un-glacially-altered surface "glacial",
but there is a good reason not to call it "glacial".
There is also no good reason to assume that the front face
of the KRS is of the same age as the "back side" and "side",
but rather good reason to assume that the front side of the
KRS is younger than the "back side" and the "side".

And BTW, yes, it is potentially permissible to abbreviate
"glacial face side" to "face side", and it is also potentially
permissible to abbreviate "glacial back side" to "back side".
But if those two terms are abbreviated, then there is the
problem of the generic confusion that results when
"glacial side" is abbreviated to "side", and also
the problem of the generic confusion that results when
"glacial side" is not abbreviated, because then "side"
can be taken to mean any one of the six sides, and
"glacial side" can be taken to refer to any one of the five
sides that are not the split side.
Abbreviating-away the word "glacial" removes the specificity
of the terms, and renders them non-explanatory; the lack of a
specific identifier for the last "glacial side" is a curious omission,
one that does not aid clarity of argument.
It also suggests the descriptor "glacial" was originally applied
only to the righthand side of the KRS, to distinguish it from the
side opposite, i.e. the lefthand "split" side, withthe other large
surfaces being called not "sides", but rather "front" and "back".
Perhaps after it was concluded that the lefthand side had been
intentionally split, a decision was made to assume that all of the
other surfaces were much-too-old to have been intentionally split,
so that the "glacial" category was extended to those other surfaces
(greater-than-12,000-years-old being much too old for a reasonable
argument for intentional splitting of any of the other surfaces), along

with a decision to call all of the surfaces "sides", to neatly separate

all six of the main surfaces of the KRS into "glacial sides" and
"non-glacial sides", the specious neatness of the categorisation
being then so impressive that the lack of a distinctive identifier for
the now-generic "glacial side" went un-noticed, much as the middle
child of a family escapes distinction when a new baby inspires a
"there's the baby, and then there's the older ones" categorisation
by a harried post-natal caregiver.
The above "clarification" is nothing like an explanation for the
application of the term "glacial" to the front face of the KRS.
I remain unconvinced that there is any reasonable basis for doing
so, and I am dismayed by the argumentational sloppiness of the
authors' presentation of their categorisation.
I find that six-part list of names of the surfaces of the KRS to be
specious, suspiciously convenient, and unsupported by fact.
It would seem to me that that list should be considered to be
part of the "speculation" part of the book, not the factual part.

I am reminded that one of the alternate meanings of the
literary genre designation "SF" is "Speculative Fiction", the earlier
meaning being "Science Fiction", which arose from the earliest
form "Scientifiction", meaning a narrative that, although it would
be mainly fictional entertainment, should include a leavening of
scientific exposition in order to educate the reader somewhat.
I am leaning towards the conclusion that "Scientifiction" would
be an appropriate categorisation for Neilsen's and Wolter's book,
were it not for the apparent preponderance of exposition over
fiction in the book.
So, if it's not good science, and it's not pure fiction, then
perhaps it might best be categorised as "Scientific Fiction",
"Fictional Science", or maybe just the hoary old
"Pseudoscience" designator.

I suppose by now it is clear that I am not at all impressed with
Wolter's attempt to clarify his listing of the surfaces of the KRS,
nor with his writing style in general.
His writing does not exhibit signs of being that of a professional
scientist.

<Wolter:>
Post by Alan Crozier
The
original inscription on both the face and split sides, the
flaked areas adjacent to all the carved characters, the entire
split side (less the retooled runes and the Holand "H") and the
area on the top end in contact with the split side edge, ALL
exhibit the exact same weathering profile that is NOT as
advanced as the glacial surfaces. This led to the conclusion
that they were made at the same time.
Riiiighhhht ... "Besides the baby, there be other whelps;
cuzza the baby be the youngest, all the others must be
come from a one litter. They be all enrolled in the same
class at the schoolhouse, cuzza they be all the same age,
being from just the one litter 'n' all, y'know, neveryoumind that
one o'them older ones be still in diapers an' makin' goo-goo talk."

That conclusion is
specious, suspiciously convenient, and unsupported by fact.
Post by Alan Crozier
"For Daryl's purposes, the conchoidal shaped impact fractures
were observed along the perimeter edges of the split side that
are in contact with the glacial face and back sides."
Alan, I do hope that you are not taking any of my criticism
personally,
as none of it is directed at you.
It's just that the more I find out about this book, the less I esteem

the intellects of the authors, and the more irritated I become at their

squandering of an opportunity to actually advance the general
understanding of this curious object.

However, I am genuinely appreciative of your efforts to provide a
well-written and reasoned review of the book.
I am now confident that the right course for me is to await
a revised version of this, their unedited proof version, and
I surely hope that my freelance (and free, mind you) editorial
commentary will have been of some use in producing the final copy.

Denk & Skoal,
Daryl Krupa
Inger E.Johansson
2006-01-21 09:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Daryl,
do you really believe that a naysayer, you or anyone else, would be
impressed if you haven't at least taken you time to order the book, either
directly or via a library, and go thru the facts and figures? As you been
told numerous times before - you can't lean on anyone else but yourself
doing the hard work it is to go thru anything you try to dismiss. It's
completely impossible to judge any scholars work from quotes and other
person's opinions!

Inger E
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
1. Glacial face side
2. Glacial top end
3. Glacial side
(the right hand side when the inscription is upright)
4. Glacial back side
5. Glacial bottom end
6. Split side (the left hand side)
That's clear enough, isn't it?
No, sorry, it's not.
That list seems to imply that only the left hand side
has not been
marked by glacial scratching.
I was under the impression that the front face,
at least, was unglaciated, so
"Glacial face side" is Greek to me.
I can't imagine why 5 of 6 sides would be described
as being "glacial", unless those 5 sides all show some
scratch mark that are not so evident on the split side.
That list seems to show a questionable understanding
of the meaning of the word "glacial" when applied to
stone surfaces.
It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me when
compared to the pictures I've seen and the descriptions I've read.
Could we be seeing another embedded assumption,
i.e. that only the split side could be
contemporaneous with the inscription,
because all the other sides are at least 12,000 years old?
That assumption would certainly simplify the argument
for investigating the weathering on the split side only,
but I can't see a good reason to claim that
the split side is the only unglaciated side.
Can you, please?
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
On p. 46 one conclusion is that "The previously larger-sized
stone was intentional broken down, or split, to its present
shape prior to carving the inscription."
Do they give any factual support for that conclusion,
please, or is it just thrown out as a "given"?
Alan, thank you very much for obtaining the clarification.
Does it appear in the book, or is it an afterthought?
<Wolter:>
Post by Alan Crozier
"My use of the term "glacial surfaces" refers to
the five surfaces (face, top end, bottom end, side and back)
that exhibit weathering consistent with ~12,000 years.
Hmmm ... without knowing the criteria that were applied
in order to arrive at that judgement, I must speculate that
only two categories af age-of-surface were considered in
this binary weathering-dating classification, i.e.,
definitely-not-pre-deglaciation because not-weathered-enough,
and more-weathered older surfaces, with the latter category
being assigned to pre-deglaciation time.
<Wolter:>
Post by Alan Crozier
Only the glacial back and glacial side surfaces
exhibit glacial striations.
Perhaps the latter category was assigned the pre-deglaciation
dating on the basis that some of its members showed signs of
having been glacially altered.
But that observation that only a sub-category of those surfaces
has glacial striations indicates that there may be no evidence
that the rest of the surfaces in that category have been glaciated.
Such a lack of evidence strongly suggests that there is
no good reason to call the rest of the surfaces in that category
"glacial".
Such a lack of evidence would also indicate that there is
no good reason to assume that the the sub-category of
glacially stratified surfaces and the sub-category of
non-striated surfaces are of equal age.
If some of the older surfaces of the KRS have glacial striae
and others of the older surfaces do not have glacial striae,
that would most likely indicate that the non-striated surfaces
were created after the time of creation of the glacial striations,
else we would see glacial striations on those other surfaces.
All the above argumentation, of course, assumes that all the
surfaces are sufficiently planar to exhibit striations; the "ends"
are apparently to convex to either receive or preserve such
markings, so it is not surprising that they would not show
striations even if they had been affected by the mechanical
forces within a glacier system that can produce striations.
That caveat does not apply to the "face", "face side",
"glacial face side", "front face", or "frontside" of the KRS.
If that front face surface had existed at the time that the
"glacial back side" and "glacial side" were being striated,
then I see no reason why the front face surface would not
also show some evidence of glacial action.
I must conclude that the front face surface is younger
than the "glacial back side" and "glacial side", because
any striations that might have once graced the front have
been removed, by erosion of the surface, or by removal of
the original surface (e.g., by splitting-off of that part of the
parent stone).
If two of flattish surfaces of the KRS show the effects of
glacial alteration, and one of the flattish surfaces of the KRS
does not show the effects of glacial alteration, then there is
no reason to call that un-glacially-altered surface "glacial",
but there is a good reason not to call it "glacial".
There is also no good reason to assume that the front face
of the KRS is of the same age as the "back side" and "side",
but rather good reason to assume that the front side of the
KRS is younger than the "back side" and the "side".
And BTW, yes, it is potentially permissible to abbreviate
"glacial face side" to "face side", and it is also potentially
permissible to abbreviate "glacial back side" to "back side".
But if those two terms are abbreviated, then there is the
problem of the generic confusion that results when
"glacial side" is abbreviated to "side", and also
the problem of the generic confusion that results when
"glacial side" is not abbreviated, because then "side"
can be taken to mean any one of the six sides, and
"glacial side" can be taken to refer to any one of the five
sides that are not the split side.
Abbreviating-away the word "glacial" removes the specificity
of the terms, and renders them non-explanatory; the lack of a
specific identifier for the last "glacial side" is a curious omission,
one that does not aid clarity of argument.
It also suggests the descriptor "glacial" was originally applied
only to the righthand side of the KRS, to distinguish it from the
side opposite, i.e. the lefthand "split" side, withthe other large
surfaces being called not "sides", but rather "front" and "back".
Perhaps after it was concluded that the lefthand side had been
intentionally split, a decision was made to assume that all of the
other surfaces were much-too-old to have been intentionally split,
so that the "glacial" category was extended to those other surfaces
(greater-than-12,000-years-old being much too old for a reasonable
argument for intentional splitting of any of the other surfaces), along
with a decision to call all of the surfaces "sides", to neatly separate
all six of the main surfaces of the KRS into "glacial sides" and
"non-glacial sides", the specious neatness of the categorisation
being then so impressive that the lack of a distinctive identifier for
the now-generic "glacial side" went un-noticed, much as the middle
child of a family escapes distinction when a new baby inspires a
"there's the baby, and then there's the older ones" categorisation
by a harried post-natal caregiver.
The above "clarification" is nothing like an explanation for the
application of the term "glacial" to the front face of the KRS.
I remain unconvinced that there is any reasonable basis for doing
so, and I am dismayed by the argumentational sloppiness of the
authors' presentation of their categorisation.
I find that six-part list of names of the surfaces of the KRS to be
specious, suspiciously convenient, and unsupported by fact.
It would seem to me that that list should be considered to be
part of the "speculation" part of the book, not the factual part.
I am reminded that one of the alternate meanings of the
literary genre designation "SF" is "Speculative Fiction", the earlier
meaning being "Science Fiction", which arose from the earliest
form "Scientifiction", meaning a narrative that, although it would
be mainly fictional entertainment, should include a leavening of
scientific exposition in order to educate the reader somewhat.
I am leaning towards the conclusion that "Scientifiction" would
be an appropriate categorisation for Neilsen's and Wolter's book,
were it not for the apparent preponderance of exposition over
fiction in the book.
So, if it's not good science, and it's not pure fiction, then
perhaps it might best be categorised as "Scientific Fiction",
"Fictional Science", or maybe just the hoary old
"Pseudoscience" designator.
I suppose by now it is clear that I am not at all impressed with
Wolter's attempt to clarify his listing of the surfaces of the KRS,
nor with his writing style in general.
His writing does not exhibit signs of being that of a professional
scientist.
<Wolter:>
Post by Alan Crozier
The
original inscription on both the face and split sides, the
flaked areas adjacent to all the carved characters, the entire
split side (less the retooled runes and the Holand "H") and the
area on the top end in contact with the split side edge, ALL
exhibit the exact same weathering profile that is NOT as
advanced as the glacial surfaces. This led to the conclusion
that they were made at the same time.
Riiiighhhht ... "Besides the baby, there be other whelps;
cuzza the baby be the youngest, all the others must be
come from a one litter. They be all enrolled in the same
class at the schoolhouse, cuzza they be all the same age,
being from just the one litter 'n' all, y'know, neveryoumind that
one o'them older ones be still in diapers an' makin' goo-goo talk."
That conclusion is
specious, suspiciously convenient, and unsupported by fact.
Post by Alan Crozier
"For Daryl's purposes, the conchoidal shaped impact fractures
were observed along the perimeter edges of the split side that
are in contact with the glacial face and back sides."
Alan, I do hope that you are not taking any of my criticism
personally,
as none of it is directed at you.
It's just that the more I find out about this book, the less I esteem
the intellects of the authors, and the more irritated I become at their
squandering of an opportunity to actually advance the general
understanding of this curious object.
However, I am genuinely appreciative of your efforts to provide a
well-written and reasoned review of the book.
I am now confident that the right course for me is to await
a revised version of this, their unedited proof version, and
I surely hope that my freelance (and free, mind you) editorial
commentary will have been of some use in producing the final copy.
Denk & Skoal,
Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa
2006-01-21 10:31:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Daryl Krupa wrote:
<snip>
Post by Daryl Krupa
Such a lack of evidence would also indicate that there is
no good reason to assume that the the sub-category of
glacially stratified surfaces
and the sub-category of non-striated surfaces are of equal age.
Please read, "glacially striated surfaces".

<snip>
Post by Daryl Krupa
the "ends" are apparently
to convex
to either receive or preserve such markings,
<snip>

Please read, "too convex".

Sorry for the typo's,
Daryl Krupa

Please read, "me".
Eric Stevens
2006-01-21 20:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
1. Glacial face side
2. Glacial top end
3. Glacial side
(the right hand side when the inscription is upright)
4. Glacial back side
5. Glacial bottom end
6. Split side (the left hand side)
That's clear enough, isn't it?
No, sorry, it's not.
That list seems to imply that only the left hand side
has not been
marked by glacial scratching.
I was under the impression that the front face,
at least, was unglaciated, so
"Glacial face side" is Greek to me.
I can't imagine why 5 of 6 sides would be described
as being "glacial", unless those 5 sides all show some
scratch mark that are not so evident on the split side.
That list seems to show a questionable understanding
of the meaning of the word "glacial" when applied to
stone surfaces.
It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me when
compared to the pictures I've seen and the descriptions I've read.
Could we be seeing another embedded assumption,
i.e. that only the split side could be
contemporaneous with the inscription,
because all the other sides are at least 12,000 years old?
That assumption would certainly simplify the argument
for investigating the weathering on the split side only,
but I can't see a good reason to claim that
the split side is the only unglaciated side.
Can you, please?
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
On p. 46 one conclusion is that "The previously larger-sized
stone was intentional broken down, or split, to its present
shape prior to carving the inscription."
Do they give any factual support for that conclusion,
please, or is it just thrown out as a "given"?
Alan, thank you very much for obtaining the clarification.
Does it appear in the book, or is it an afterthought?
<Wolter:>
Post by Alan Crozier
"My use of the term "glacial surfaces" refers to
the five surfaces (face, top end, bottom end, side and back)
that exhibit weathering consistent with ~12,000 years.
Hmmm ... without knowing the criteria that were applied
in order to arrive at that judgement, I must speculate that
only two categories af age-of-surface were considered in
this binary weathering-dating classification, i.e.,
definitely-not-pre-deglaciation because not-weathered-enough,
and more-weathered older surfaces, with the latter category
being assigned to pre-deglaciation time.
<Wolter:>
Post by Alan Crozier
Only the glacial back and glacial side surfaces
exhibit glacial striations.
--- enormous snip ----
Post by Daryl Krupa
So, if it's not good science, and it's not pure fiction, then
perhaps it might best be categorised as "Scientific Fiction",
"Fictional Science", or maybe just the hoary old
"Pseudoscience" designator.
I suppose by now it is clear that I am not at all impressed with
Wolter's attempt to clarify his listing of the surfaces of the KRS,
nor with his writing style in general.
His writing does not exhibit signs of being that of a professional
scientist.
<Wolter:>
Post by Alan Crozier
The
original inscription on both the face and split sides, the
flaked areas adjacent to all the carved characters, the entire
split side (less the retooled runes and the Holand "H") and the
area on the top end in contact with the split side edge, ALL
exhibit the exact same weathering profile that is NOT as
advanced as the glacial surfaces. This led to the conclusion
that they were made at the same time.
Riiiighhhht ... "Besides the baby, there be other whelps;
cuzza the baby be the youngest, all the others must be
come from a one litter. They be all enrolled in the same
class at the schoolhouse, cuzza they be all the same age,
being from just the one litter 'n' all, y'know, neveryoumind that
one o'them older ones be still in diapers an' makin' goo-goo talk."
That conclusion is
specious, suspiciously convenient, and unsupported by fact.
Post by Alan Crozier
"For Daryl's purposes, the conchoidal shaped impact fractures
were observed along the perimeter edges of the split side that
are in contact with the glacial face and back sides."
Alan, I do hope that you are not taking any of my criticism
personally,
as none of it is directed at you.
It's just that the more I find out about this book, the less I esteem
the intellects of the authors, and the more irritated I become at their
squandering of an opportunity to actually advance the general
understanding of this curious object.
However, I am genuinely appreciative of your efforts to provide a
well-written and reasoned review of the book.
I am now confident that the right course for me is to await
a revised version of this, their unedited proof version, and
I surely hope that my freelance (and free, mind you) editorial
commentary will have been of some use in producing the final copy.
Denk & Skoal,
Daryl,

Why are you doing this?

You have consistently made negative comments about what is in the book
yet you have never even seen a copy, let alone read it.

In the circumstances I can only describe as bizarre your statement
(above):

"I suppose by now it is clear that I am not at all impressed with
Wolter's attempt to clarify his listing of the surfaces of the KRS,
nor with his writing style in general.
His writing does not exhibit signs of being that of a professional
scientist."

How can you possibly know?

And even if you are correct, does it matter if he uses a different
style from the one you expect?

You should save your comments until you are in a position to know what
you are talking about.



Eric Stevens
prd
2006-01-21 21:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Daryl,
Why are you doing this?
So he can see you do your rendition of the Anglohoovian Death Spiral?
Steve Marcus
2006-01-22 14:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
1. Glacial face side
2. Glacial top end
3. Glacial side
(the right hand side when the inscription is upright)
4. Glacial back side
5. Glacial bottom end
6. Split side (the left hand side)
That's clear enough, isn't it?
No, sorry, it's not.
That list seems to imply that only the left hand side
has not been
marked by glacial scratching.
I was under the impression that the front face,
at least, was unglaciated, so
"Glacial face side" is Greek to me.
I can't imagine why 5 of 6 sides would be described
as being "glacial", unless those 5 sides all show some
scratch mark that are not so evident on the split side.
That list seems to show a questionable understanding
of the meaning of the word "glacial" when applied to
stone surfaces.
It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me when
compared to the pictures I've seen and the descriptions I've read.
Could we be seeing another embedded assumption,
i.e. that only the split side could be
contemporaneous with the inscription,
because all the other sides are at least 12,000 years old?
That assumption would certainly simplify the argument
for investigating the weathering on the split side only,
but I can't see a good reason to claim that
the split side is the only unglaciated side.
Can you, please?
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
On p. 46 one conclusion is that "The previously larger-sized
stone was intentional broken down, or split, to its present
shape prior to carving the inscription."
Do they give any factual support for that conclusion,
please, or is it just thrown out as a "given"?
Alan, thank you very much for obtaining the clarification.
Does it appear in the book, or is it an afterthought?
<Wolter:>
Post by Alan Crozier
"My use of the term "glacial surfaces" refers to
the five surfaces (face, top end, bottom end, side and back)
that exhibit weathering consistent with ~12,000 years.
Hmmm ... without knowing the criteria that were applied
in order to arrive at that judgement, I must speculate that
only two categories af age-of-surface were considered in
this binary weathering-dating classification, i.e.,
definitely-not-pre-deglaciation because not-weathered-enough,
and more-weathered older surfaces, with the latter category
being assigned to pre-deglaciation time.
<Wolter:>
Post by Alan Crozier
Only the glacial back and glacial side surfaces
exhibit glacial striations.
--- enormous snip ----
Post by Daryl Krupa
So, if it's not good science, and it's not pure fiction, then
perhaps it might best be categorised as "Scientific Fiction",
"Fictional Science", or maybe just the hoary old
"Pseudoscience" designator.
I suppose by now it is clear that I am not at all impressed with
Wolter's attempt to clarify his listing of the surfaces of the KRS,
nor with his writing style in general.
His writing does not exhibit signs of being that of a professional
scientist.
<Wolter:>
Post by Alan Crozier
The
original inscription on both the face and split sides, the
flaked areas adjacent to all the carved characters, the entire
split side (less the retooled runes and the Holand "H") and the
area on the top end in contact with the split side edge, ALL
exhibit the exact same weathering profile that is NOT as
advanced as the glacial surfaces. This led to the conclusion
that they were made at the same time.
Riiiighhhht ... "Besides the baby, there be other whelps;
cuzza the baby be the youngest, all the others must be
come from a one litter. They be all enrolled in the same
class at the schoolhouse, cuzza they be all the same age,
being from just the one litter 'n' all, y'know, neveryoumind that
one o'them older ones be still in diapers an' makin' goo-goo talk."
That conclusion is
specious, suspiciously convenient, and unsupported by fact.
Post by Alan Crozier
"For Daryl's purposes, the conchoidal shaped impact fractures
were observed along the perimeter edges of the split side that
are in contact with the glacial face and back sides."
Alan, I do hope that you are not taking any of my criticism
personally,
as none of it is directed at you.
It's just that the more I find out about this book, the less I esteem
the intellects of the authors, and the more irritated I become at their
squandering of an opportunity to actually advance the general
understanding of this curious object.
However, I am genuinely appreciative of your efforts to provide a
well-written and reasoned review of the book.
I am now confident that the right course for me is to await
a revised version of this, their unedited proof version, and
I surely hope that my freelance (and free, mind you) editorial
commentary will have been of some use in producing the final copy.
Denk & Skoal,
Daryl,
Why are you doing this?
You have consistently made negative comments about what is in the book
yet you have never even seen a copy, let alone read it.
In the circumstances I can only describe as bizarre your statement
"I suppose by now it is clear that I am not at all impressed with
Wolter's attempt to clarify his listing of the surfaces of the KRS,
nor with his writing style in general.
His writing does not exhibit signs of being that of a professional
scientist."
How can you possibly know?
And even if you are correct, does it matter if he uses a different
style from the one you expect?
You should save your comments until you are in a position to know what
you are talking about.
Eric Stevens
My wife and daughter graciously picked up my copy of the book from Barnes
and Noble yesterday. I'm immersed in another book at present, but I
couldn't resist taking a glance at the book. While I intend to read the
book slowly, carefully, and with an open mind, I have to tell you that
within the first 10 pages (and including the Foreward), the book contains
numerous errors of logic (stating conclusions that might be accurate, but
clearly do *not* necessarily follow from the facts given), as well as errors
in terms of analyzing and weighting evidence

Most of these errors are in favor of finding Ohman "innocent." Resolving
whether or not Ohman perpetrated or helped to perpetrate a hoax is a
laudable objective, but the answer is, of course, irrelevant to the issue of
whether the KRS is or is not an authentic14th century runestone that was
created in North America, and one is in favor of finding that the KRS "must"
be authentic. One suspects, sadly, that this is so due to a predisposition
on the part of the authors (and their supporting cast, Alice Keyhoe wrote
the Foreward).

I have written the above in response to your answer to Daryl because your
post is also reflective of a predisposition to bias on the side of
authenticity of the KRS. You conveniently forget that it was *you* who
opened this discussion. This means that for someone who hasn't read the
book, it is what *you* have posted (and what others claiming to have read
the book have posted) that is the sole means by which that someone knows
what the books "says." It is fair for someone who understands the science
to which posted material is directed, (and/or the appropriate way to analyze
and weight evidence so as to then draw appropriate conclusions from the
evidence), to point out that material posted by those who have read the book
seems to be inaccurate, and/or poorly written so as to be ambiguous or
confusing, and to then attempt to explain why.

It is not, however, fair, to criticize someone who has drawn conclusions by
analyzing what people (including you) have quoted from (or posted without
quoting the book) and has pointed out that what was posted does not support
any unassailable position. Even as to writing style, the posts of have
included large quotes from the book, and if this material is confusing to
someone who works in the field discussed in the quotes, it is also unfair to
criticize that someone for saying so.

Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-21 00:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Please excuse top posting, but I think my "version of the story" has
been rested for me. ;-)

tk
Post by Daryl Krupa
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in North Dakota.
There are no such villages, and never have been,
in Montana.
Is this invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness.
According to the book they found the stone
"just north of the present Montana border", in Alberta, Canada.
The stone isn't associated with any villages in the book.
That doesn't make any sense.
The Verendryes got no where near Alberta.
The book says (pp 229-32) that the La Vérendrye sons headed
west from Fort Mandan on horseback to find the Pacific.
They went to see the Rockies near Pincher Creek,
south of Calgary, Alberta.
They planted a lead plaque along the Old Man River,
discovered in 1906 but not recognized for what it was until 1961
(ref to Parry 1988 in the Pincher Creek Echo).
The brothers then found a limestone column with petroglyphs
(that's rock carvings) along the Milk River. In a recess they
found the famous inscribed stone identified as Tatarian script
remember the writing on the KRS was identified early on as
Greek).
What's your version of the story, tk?
"Not necessarily correctly" applies to the whole story, above.
The 1906 date is 20 years before the creation of the lead plaque.
There is no evidence that they were ever near the Milk River,
let alone that they found anything there.
You have just caused the scholarly reputation of the authors
to plummet at alarming speed.
They used a local-newspaper article as a reference? Bleah.
Man, they're easily duped. They swallowed that whole.
Looks like they'll pass on any old rumour or fantasy as
Historical Truth.
http://www.ourheritage.net/index_page_stuff/Following_Trails/Myths/Myth_LaVerendrye.html
OR
http://tinyurl.com/b9pm8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth #1
Louis Joseph and Francoise La Verendrye saw the Canadian Rockies
in 1742-43
For decades schoolchildren had to learn that Louis Joseph and
Francoise La Verendrye came as far west as the Rocky Mountains
in 1742-43. This accomplishment made them the first whitemen to
see the Canadian Rockies.
Later, historians traced the explorers' journals and concluded that
the La Verendryes could not have travelled this far west.
The mountains they described in their journal were probably
the Black Hills of South Dakota or the Big Horn Mountains of Wyoming.
A lead plaque was unearthed at Pierre, South Dakota in 1913 and is
today known as the La Verendrye Plaque.
A box of odds and ends bought at an auction near Pincher Creek, Alberta
in 1935 yielded a similar plaque.
Further investigation revealed that the plaque had possibly been
excavated when a local family was building a new house on their ranch
in 1915.
A local historian knew that a LaVerendrye plaque
had been excavated in South Dakota a few years earlier and
decided the brothers must have left another one
near the Rocky Mountains? The story spread.
Finally, National Museum officials in Ottawa had the two plaques
compared.
The Alberta plaque turned out to be an accurate but smaller duplicate.
Eventually it was discovered that
in 1926 the Great Northern Railway had given away, as a promotion,
a series of the smaller souvenir plaques.
Each it would appear, was inscribed with the Railway's name except one.
That plaque, changed the history books.
This information was provided by the late Dr James Cousins of the
University of Lethbridge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A better source than the Pincher Creek Echo might have been
Stephen (A.M.)
VERENDRYE: A POEM OF THE NEW WORLD.
Toronto and Vancouver: J.M. Dent and Sons
(1935)
Aaaaacchhh. I'm not paying $70 Canadian for such balderdash.
-
Daryl Krupa
Eric Stevens
2006-01-20 20:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:44:51 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
in
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in
Montana.
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they
found
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any
villages in
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near
Alberta.
The book says (pp 229-32) that the La Vérendrye sons headed west
from Fort Mandan on horseback to find the Pacific. They went to
see the Rockies near Pincher Creek, south of Calgary, Alberta.
They planted a lead plaque along the Old Man River, discovered
in 1906 but not recognized for what it was until 1961 (ref to
Parry 1988 in the Pincher Creek Echo). The brothers then found a
limestone column with petroglyphs (that's rock carvings) along
the Milk River. In a recess they found the famous inscribed
remember the writing on the KRS was identified early on as
Greek).
What's your version of the story, tk?
Here is what the book actually says:

Begin quote
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In 1736, the French explorer Pierre La Vérendrye set out from
Montreal, Canada, to explore the continent along with his two sons
Charles and Louis Joseph. In addition to, trapping and trading with
the Indians, La V&endrye had another purpose for his trip. He set out
to claim land for France. To establish proof of his claim he buried up
to twelve lead plates in the ground across North America. In 1738, La
Vérendrye gave a lead plait to a Mandan chief at what is now Pierre,
South Dakota.

In 1743 the French Canadian explorer brothers Chevalier and Louis La
Vérendrye, sons of Pierre, buried an inscribed lead tablet on a bluff
overlooking present-day Pierre. Telling the local inhabitants they
were commemorating harmony with the native peoples, they were in fact
claiming the area for France, the land of the entire future Louisiana
Purchase.

The 7" x 8" lead plaque was re-discovered by Fort Pierre high school
students in 1913, and is now on display at the South Dakota Cultural
Heritage Center in Pierre. It reads, ‘in the twenty-sixth year of the
reign of Louis XV the most illustrious Lord, the Lord Marquis of
Beauharnois being Viceroy, 1741, Peter Gaultier Dc La Vérendrye placed
this." The Vérendrye Plaque is considered one of the most significant
historical finds in the northwestern United States. Today the site of
the plate is a national historic landmark.

In 1742, the La Vérendrye sons left Fort Ia Reine in Manitoba, Canada,
for Fort Mandan. From there, they headed west on horseback to find the
Pacific Ocean. On their first visit to the Mandan village in the
1730s, horses had not yet reached the northern plains from the Spanish
settlements in the Southwest. Thanks to the horses the sons went on to
see the Rocky Mountains near Pincher Creek to the south of the present
city of Calgary, Alberta, on January 1, 1743. They apparently planted
a smaller lead plaque that was dated March 30, 1743, along the Old Man
River, that would eventually be discovered in 1906. This plaque, while
smaller, has the same date as the South Dakota plaque, March 30, 1743,
but would not be recognized for what it was until 1961 (Parry 1988).
Both plaques have the same stamped inscription text on the front face,
but with unique spacing. The back side appears to have been carved
with a knife by the same individual with identical texts but unique
letter spacing and variations.

Canadian researchers believe that the Pincher Creek plaque is a modern
promotional copy of the Fort Pierre plaque. The Pincher Creek plaque
if actually found in 1906, a fact not reported until the 1960s, can
hardly be a copy of the Fort Pierre plaque that was found seven years
later. When this book went to press the location of the 1906 plate was
unknown. The authors are currently working with Canadian historians to
locate the artifact.

The Ft. Pierre plaque found in 1913 was likely brought hack by the
party after being inscribed at Old Man River, and buried or lost at a
later date at Ft. Pierre. According to his journal, their father also
presented a plaque at Ft. Pierre to the Mandan chief residing there in
1738. This plaque was not buried and has not yet been found. La
Vérendrye's sons made another important discovery on their journey to
the Rockies that would set in motion the mystery that finally appears
to he solved.

The La Vérendrye party's route led across the plains from Fort Mandan
to St. Victor, where the hands and feet inscribed in rock can be seen.
As they continued west the wooded cypress hills could be seen with its
fence-like wall of tall natural limestone pillars in series. Later
they camped in sight of the Rocky Mountains. They apparently returned
beside the Milk River, a tributary of the Missouri River. At a spot
just north of the present Montana border near the top of one of the
limestone columns they found a small recess that appeared to have been
cut into the column. Inside this opening they found a stone that was
inscribed on both sides and was approximately 1 by "2 feet in size.
They removed the inscribed stone and took it with them back to their
fort in Manitoba and subsequently delivered the stone to their father.
In 1743, the father, Pierre La Vérendrye, returned to Quebec with the
strange inscribed stone and after examination by Jesuits the language
was tentatively identified as Tartaric script. Subsequently, it was
shipped to France, addressed to the secretary of state of France,
Philippeaux Come de Maurepas.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
End quote

It carries on from the above to describe the meeting between Pierre La
Véndre and Pehr Kalm.



Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
2006-01-20 22:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric Stevens
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:44:51 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
Post by Alan Crozier
in
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana. Is
this invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they
found
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any
villages in
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near Alberta.
The book says (pp 229-32) that the La Vérendrye sons headed west
from Fort Mandan on horseback to find the Pacific. They went to
see the Rockies near Pincher Creek, south of Calgary, Alberta.
They planted a lead plaque along the Old Man River, discovered
in 1906 but not recognized for what it was until 1961 (ref to
Parry 1988 in the Pincher Creek Echo). The brothers then found a
limestone column with petroglyphs (that's rock carvings) along
the Milk River. In a recess they found the famous inscribed
remember the writing on the KRS was identified early on as
Greek).
What's your version of the story, tk?
Begin quote
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In 1736, the French explorer Pierre La Vérendrye set out from
Montreal, Canada, to explore the continent along with his two sons
Charles and Louis Joseph. In addition to, trapping and trading with
the Indians, La V&endrye had another purpose for his trip. He set out
to claim land for France. To establish proof of his claim he buried up
to twelve lead plates in the ground across North America. In 1738, La
Vérendrye gave a lead plait to a Mandan chief at what is now Pierre,
South Dakota.
In 1743 the French Canadian explorer brothers Chevalier and Louis La
Vérendrye, sons of Pierre, buried an inscribed lead tablet on a bluff
overlooking present-day Pierre. Telling the local inhabitants they
were commemorating harmony with the native peoples, they were in fact
claiming the area for France, the land of the entire future Louisiana
Purchase.
The 7" x 8" lead plaque was re-discovered by Fort Pierre high school
students in 1913, and is now on display at the South Dakota Cultural
Heritage Center in Pierre. It reads, 'in the twenty-sixth year of the
reign of Louis XV the most illustrious Lord, the Lord Marquis of
Beauharnois being Viceroy, 1741, Peter Gaultier Dc La Vérendrye placed
this." The Vérendrye Plaque is considered one of the most significant
historical finds in the northwestern United States. Today the site of
the plate is a national historic landmark.
In 1742, the La Vérendrye sons left Fort Ia Reine in Manitoba, Canada,
for Fort Mandan. From there, they headed west on horseback to find the
Pacific Ocean. On their first visit to the Mandan village in the
1730s, horses had not yet reached the northern plains from the Spanish
settlements in the Southwest. Thanks to the horses the sons went on to
see the Rocky Mountains near Pincher Creek to the south of the present
city of Calgary, Alberta, on January 1, 1743. They apparently planted
a smaller lead plaque that was dated March 30, 1743, along the Old Man
River, that would eventually be discovered in 1906. This plaque, while
smaller, has the same date as the South Dakota plaque, March 30, 1743,
but would not be recognized for what it was until 1961 (Parry 1988).
Both plaques have the same stamped inscription text on the front face,
but with unique spacing. The back side appears to have been carved
with a knife by the same individual with identical texts but unique
letter spacing and variations.
Canadian researchers believe that the Pincher Creek plaque is a modern
promotional copy of the Fort Pierre plaque. The Pincher Creek plaque
if actually found in 1906, a fact not reported until the 1960s, can
hardly be a copy of the Fort Pierre plaque that was found seven years
later. When this book went to press the location of the 1906 plate was
unknown. The authors are currently working with Canadian historians to
locate the artifact.
The Ft. Pierre plaque found in 1913 was likely brought hack by the
party after being inscribed at Old Man River, and buried or lost at a
later date at Ft. Pierre. According to his journal, their father also
presented a plaque at Ft. Pierre to the Mandan chief residing there in
1738. This plaque was not buried and has not yet been found. La
Vérendrye's sons made another important discovery on their journey to
the Rockies that would set in motion the mystery that finally appears
to he solved.
The La Vérendrye party's route led across the plains from Fort Mandan
to St. Victor, where the hands and feet inscribed in rock can be seen.
As they continued west the wooded cypress hills could be seen with its
fence-like wall of tall natural limestone pillars in series. Later
they camped in sight of the Rocky Mountains. They apparently returned
beside the Milk River, a tributary of the Missouri River. At a spot
just north of the present Montana border near the top of one of the
limestone columns they found a small recess that appeared to have been
cut into the column. Inside this opening they found a stone that was
inscribed on both sides and was approximately 1 by "2 feet in size.
They removed the inscribed stone and took it with them back to their
fort in Manitoba and subsequently delivered the stone to their father.
In 1743, the father, Pierre La Vérendrye, returned to Quebec with the
strange inscribed stone and after examination by Jesuits the language
was tentatively identified as Tartaric script. Subsequently, it was
shipped to France, addressed to the secretary of state of France,
Philippeaux Come de Maurepas.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
End quote
It carries on from the above to describe the meeting between Pierre La
Véndre and Pehr Kalm.
Thank you Eric.
I have one big question.
How can you claim land by burying lead plates?
Nail them on a tree or a rock.
--
p.a.
Tom McDonald
2006-01-21 02:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Alaca
Post by Eric Stevens
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:44:51 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
Post by Alan Crozier
in
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana. Is
this invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they
found
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any
villages in
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near Alberta.
The book says (pp 229-32) that the La Vérendrye sons headed west
from Fort Mandan on horseback to find the Pacific. They went to
see the Rockies near Pincher Creek, south of Calgary, Alberta.
They planted a lead plaque along the Old Man River, discovered
in 1906 but not recognized for what it was until 1961 (ref to
Parry 1988 in the Pincher Creek Echo). The brothers then found a
limestone column with petroglyphs (that's rock carvings) along
the Milk River. In a recess they found the famous inscribed
remember the writing on the KRS was identified early on as
Greek).
What's your version of the story, tk?
Begin quote
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In 1736, the French explorer Pierre La Vérendrye set out from
Montreal, Canada, to explore the continent along with his two sons
Charles and Louis Joseph. In addition to, trapping and trading with
the Indians, La V&endrye had another purpose for his trip. He set out
to claim land for France. To establish proof of his claim he buried up
to twelve lead plates in the ground across North America. In 1738, La
Vérendrye gave a lead plait to a Mandan chief at what is now Pierre,
South Dakota.
In 1743 the French Canadian explorer brothers Chevalier and Louis La
Vérendrye, sons of Pierre, buried an inscribed lead tablet on a bluff
overlooking present-day Pierre. Telling the local inhabitants they
were commemorating harmony with the native peoples, they were in fact
claiming the area for France, the land of the entire future Louisiana
Purchase.
The 7" x 8" lead plaque was re-discovered by Fort Pierre high school
students in 1913, and is now on display at the South Dakota Cultural
Heritage Center in Pierre. It reads, 'in the twenty-sixth year of the
reign of Louis XV the most illustrious Lord, the Lord Marquis of
Beauharnois being Viceroy, 1741, Peter Gaultier Dc La Vérendrye placed
this." The Vérendrye Plaque is considered one of the most significant
historical finds in the northwestern United States. Today the site of
the plate is a national historic landmark.
In 1742, the La Vérendrye sons left Fort Ia Reine in Manitoba, Canada,
for Fort Mandan. From there, they headed west on horseback to find the
Pacific Ocean. On their first visit to the Mandan village in the
1730s, horses had not yet reached the northern plains from the Spanish
settlements in the Southwest. Thanks to the horses the sons went on to
see the Rocky Mountains near Pincher Creek to the south of the present
city of Calgary, Alberta, on January 1, 1743. They apparently planted
a smaller lead plaque that was dated March 30, 1743, along the Old Man
River, that would eventually be discovered in 1906. This plaque, while
smaller, has the same date as the South Dakota plaque, March 30, 1743,
but would not be recognized for what it was until 1961 (Parry 1988).
Both plaques have the same stamped inscription text on the front face,
but with unique spacing. The back side appears to have been carved
with a knife by the same individual with identical texts but unique
letter spacing and variations.
Canadian researchers believe that the Pincher Creek plaque is a modern
promotional copy of the Fort Pierre plaque. The Pincher Creek plaque
if actually found in 1906, a fact not reported until the 1960s, can
hardly be a copy of the Fort Pierre plaque that was found seven years
later. When this book went to press the location of the 1906 plate was
unknown. The authors are currently working with Canadian historians to
locate the artifact.
The Ft. Pierre plaque found in 1913 was likely brought hack by the
party after being inscribed at Old Man River, and buried or lost at a
later date at Ft. Pierre. According to his journal, their father also
presented a plaque at Ft. Pierre to the Mandan chief residing there in
1738. This plaque was not buried and has not yet been found. La
Vérendrye's sons made another important discovery on their journey to
the Rockies that would set in motion the mystery that finally appears
to he solved.
The La Vérendrye party's route led across the plains from Fort Mandan
to St. Victor, where the hands and feet inscribed in rock can be seen.
As they continued west the wooded cypress hills could be seen with its
fence-like wall of tall natural limestone pillars in series. Later
they camped in sight of the Rocky Mountains. They apparently returned
beside the Milk River, a tributary of the Missouri River. At a spot
just north of the present Montana border near the top of one of the
limestone columns they found a small recess that appeared to have been
cut into the column. Inside this opening they found a stone that was
inscribed on both sides and was approximately 1 by "2 feet in size.
They removed the inscribed stone and took it with them back to their
fort in Manitoba and subsequently delivered the stone to their father.
In 1743, the father, Pierre La Vérendrye, returned to Quebec with the
strange inscribed stone and after examination by Jesuits the language
was tentatively identified as Tartaric script. Subsequently, it was
shipped to France, addressed to the secretary of state of France,
Philippeaux Come de Maurepas.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
End quote
It carries on from the above to describe the meeting between Pierre La
Véndre and Pehr Kalm.
Thank you Eric.
I have one big question.
How can you claim land by burying lead plates?
Nail them on a tree or a rock.
You have to admit, though, that they make far more convincing
land claims (because they *say* they are claiming land) than the
KRS as a land claim.
Peter Alaca
2006-01-21 00:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Peter Alaca
I have one big question.
How can you claim land by burying lead plates?
Nail them on a tree or a rock.
You have to admit, though, that they make far more convincing
land claims (because they *say* they are claiming land) than the
KRS as a land claim.
If someone finds that plates, yes.
Else they are equally useless.

ps. do you think they burried the KRS?
--
p.a.
Tom McDonald
2006-01-21 03:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Alaca
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Peter Alaca
I have one big question.
How can you claim land by burying lead plates?
Nail them on a tree or a rock.
You have to admit, though, that they make far more convincing
land claims (because they *say* they are claiming land) than the
KRS as a land claim.
If someone finds that plates, yes.
Else they are equally useless.
ps. do you think they burried the KRS?
Don't know. Don't really care. Unless the 'they' you mention
were hoaxers.
Inger E.Johansson
2006-01-20 09:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana.
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they found
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any villages in
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near Alberta.
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?

Inger E
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
tk
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-21 00:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana.
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they found
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any villages in
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near Alberta.
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
What does that insult have to do which the price of eggs in Alberta?

tk
prd
2006-01-21 06:35:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
What does that insult have to do which the price of eggs in
Alberta?
Don't get Pehr Turbed. Think about Pehr Mutations.
Inger E.Johansson
2006-01-21 07:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana.
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they found
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any villages in
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near Alberta.
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
What does that insult have to do which the price of eggs in Alberta?
tk
tk,
usually you seem to be one of the few who tries to the best of your ability
to get hold on references, no matter who sent them. Thus the Kalm note was
and is an observation that not even you who when we discussed Kalm seemed to
at least checked parts of what's up for discussion had read the Verendrye
lines of Kalm.

Inger E
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-21 15:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana.
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they found
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any villages in
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near Alberta.
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
What does that insult have to do which the price of eggs in Alberta?
tk
tk,
usually you seem to be one of the few who tries to the best of your ability
to get hold on references, no matter who sent them. Thus the Kalm note was
and is an observation that not even you who when we discussed Kalm seemed to
at least checked parts of what's up for discussion had read the Verendrye
lines of Kalm.
Your lines were and are still insulting. Yes, I have read Kalm on
Verendrye. Yes, I posted a link to the paragraphs in question. Yes, I
even transcribed them for my own use:


<quote>
Kalm, Pehr
Travels in North America
Vol II.

[277] ... In later times there have, however, been found a few marks of
antiquity, from which it may be conjectured, that North America was
formerly inhabited by a nation more versed in science, and more
civilized, than that which [278] the Europeans found on their arrival
here; or that a great military expedition was undertaken to this
continent, from these known parts of the world.
This is confirmed by an account which I received from Mr. de
Verandriere, who has commanded the expedition to the south-sea in
person, of which I shall presently give an account. I have heard it
repeated by others, who have been eye-witnesses of everything that
happened on that occasion. Some years before I came into Canada, the
then governor-general, Chevalier de Beauharnois, gave Mr. de Verandrier
an order to go from Canada, with a number of people, on an expedition
across North America to the south-sea, in order to examine how far those
two places are distant from each other, and to find out what advantages
might accrue to Canada, or Louisiana from communication with that ocean.
They set out on horseback from Montreal, and went as much due west as
they could, on account of the lakes, rivers, and mountains, which fell
in their way. As they came far into the country, beyond many nations,
they sometimes met with large tracts of land free from wood, but covered
with a kind of tall grass, and for the space of some days journey. Many
of these fields were everywhere covered with furrows, as if they had
been ploughed and sown formerly. It is to be observed, that the nations,
which now inhabit North America, could not cultivate the land in this
manner, because they never made use of horses, oxen, ploughs or any kind
of instruments of husbandry, nor had they every seen a plough [279]
before the Europeans came to them. In two or three places, at a
considerable distance from each other, our travelers met with
impressions in a rock; but this seems to have been no more than a Lusus
Naturae. When they came far to the west, where to the best of their
knowledge, no Frenchmen, or European, had ever been, they found in one
place in the woods, and again on a large plain, great pillars of stone,
leaning upon each other. The pillars consisted of one single stone each,
and the Frenchmen could not but suppose, that they had been erected by
human hands. Sometimes they found such stones laid upon one another,
and, as it were, formed into a wall. In some of those places where they
found such stones, they could not find in any other sorts of stones.
They have not been able to discover any characters, or writing, upon any
of these stones, though they have made a very careful search after them.
At last they met with a large stone, like a pillar, and in it a smaller
stone was fixed. which was covered on both sides with unknown
characters. This stone, which was about a foot of French measure in
length, and between four and five inches broad, they broke loose, and
carried it to Canada with them, from when it was sent to France, to the
secretary of state, the Count of Maurepas. What became of it afterwards
is unknown to them, but they think it is yet preserved in his
collection. Several of the Jesuits, who have seen and handled this stone
in Canada, unanimously affirm, that the letters on it are the same as
those which in the books [280] containing accounts of Tartaria, are
called Tartarian characters [long footnote]; and that on comparing both
together, they found them perfectly alike. Not [281] withstanding the
questions which the French on the south-sea expedition asked the people
there concerning the time when, and by whom, those pillars were erected?
what their traditions and sentiments concerning them were? who wrote the
characters? what was meant by them? what kind of characters were they?
in what language were they written? and other circumstances; yet they
could never get the least explanation, the Indians being as ignorant of
all those things as the French themselves. All they could say was, that
these stones had been in those place time immemorial. The place where
the pillars stood was near nine hundred French miles westward of
Montreal. The chief intention of this journey, viz. to come to the south
sea, and to examine its distance from Canada, was never attained on this
occasion. For the people sent out for that purpose, were induced to take
part in a war between some of the most distant Indian nations, in which
some of the French were taken prisoners, and the rest obliged to return.
Among the last and most westerly Indians they were with, they heard that
the south-sea was but a few days journey off; that they (the Indians)
often traded with the Spaniards on that coast, and sometimes likewise
they went to Hudson's Bay to trade with the English. Some of these
Indians had houses, which were made of earth. Many nations had never
seen any Frenchmen; they were commonly clad in skins, but many were
quite naked.

</quote>

Please apologize for your insult.


The Verendryes got nowhere near Alberta.

tk
Eric Stevens
2006-01-21 21:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:32:48 -0500, "t(nospam)kavanagh"
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana.
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they found
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any villages in
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near Alberta.
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
What does that insult have to do which the price of eggs in Alberta?
tk
tk,
usually you seem to be one of the few who tries to the best of your ability
to get hold on references, no matter who sent them. Thus the Kalm note was
and is an observation that not even you who when we discussed Kalm seemed to
at least checked parts of what's up for discussion had read the Verendrye
lines of Kalm.
Your lines were and are still insulting. Yes, I have read Kalm on
Verendrye. Yes, I posted a link to the paragraphs in question. Yes, I
<quote>
Kalm, Pehr
Travels in North America
Vol II.
-- snip ---
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
</quote>
--- snip ----
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
The Verendryes got nowhere near Alberta.
But what about the sons?



Eric Stevens
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-22 00:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric Stevens
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:32:48 -0500, "t(nospam)kavanagh"
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana.
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they found
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any villages in
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near Alberta.
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
What does that insult have to do which the price of eggs in Alberta?
tk
tk,
usually you seem to be one of the few who tries to the best of your ability
to get hold on references, no matter who sent them. Thus the Kalm note was
and is an observation that not even you who when we discussed Kalm seemed to
at least checked parts of what's up for discussion had read the Verendrye
lines of Kalm.
Your lines were and are still insulting. Yes, I have read Kalm on
Verendrye. Yes, I posted a link to the paragraphs in question. Yes, I
<quote>
Kalm, Pehr
Travels in North America
Vol II.
-- snip ---
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
</quote>
--- snip ----
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
The Verendryes got nowhere near Alberta.
But what about the sons?
What about 'em?

tk
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-22 01:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:32:48 -0500, "t(nospam)kavanagh"
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana.
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they found
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any villages in
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near Alberta.
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
What does that insult have to do which the price of eggs in Alberta?
tk
tk,
usually you seem to be one of the few who tries to the best of your ability
to get hold on references, no matter who sent them. Thus the Kalm note was
and is an observation that not even you who when we discussed Kalm seemed to
at least checked parts of what's up for discussion had read the Verendrye
lines of Kalm.
Your lines were and are still insulting. Yes, I have read Kalm on
Verendrye. Yes, I posted a link to the paragraphs in question. Yes, I
<quote>
Kalm, Pehr
Travels in North America
Vol II.
-- snip ---
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
</quote>
--- snip ----
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
The Verendryes got nowhere near Alberta.
But what about the sons?
What about 'em?
To be specific, they didn't get anywhere near Alberta (either).

tk
Eric Stevens
2006-01-22 04:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:20:06 -0500, "t(nospam)kavanagh"
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:32:48 -0500, "t(nospam)kavanagh"
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana.
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they found
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any villages in
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near Alberta.
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
What does that insult have to do which the price of eggs in Alberta?
tk
tk,
usually you seem to be one of the few who tries to the best of your ability
to get hold on references, no matter who sent them. Thus the Kalm note was
and is an observation that not even you who when we discussed Kalm seemed to
at least checked parts of what's up for discussion had read the Verendrye
lines of Kalm.
Your lines were and are still insulting. Yes, I have read Kalm on
Verendrye. Yes, I posted a link to the paragraphs in question. Yes, I
<quote>
Kalm, Pehr
Travels in North America
Vol II.
-- snip ---
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
</quote>
--- snip ----
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
The Verendryes got nowhere near Alberta.
But what about the sons?
What about 'em?
To quote (again) from Wolters/Nielsen:

"In 1742, the La Vérendrye sons left Fort Ia Reine in Manitoba,
Canada, for Fort Mandan. From there, they headed west on horseback
to find the Pacific Ocean. On their first visit to the Mandan
village in the 1730s, horses had not yet reached the northern
plains from the Spanish settlements in the Southwest. Thanks to the
horses the sons went on to see the Rocky Mountains near Pincher
Creek to the south of the present city of Calgary, Alberta, on
January 1, 1743. They apparently planted a smaller lead plaque that
was dated March 30, 1743, along the Old Man River, that would
eventually be discovered in 1906. This plaque, while smaller, has
the same date as the South Dakota plaque, March 30, 1743,
but would not be recognized for what it was until 1961 (Parry
1988). Both plaques have the same stamped inscription text on the
front face, but with unique spacing. The back side appears to have
been carved with a knife by the same individual with identical
texts but unique letter spacing and variations."

According to my atlas the 'Oldman River' is well to the west of
Alberta.



Eric Stevens
Daryl Krupa
2006-01-22 06:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Eric Stevens wrote:
<snip recounting of discredited fable>
Post by Eric Stevens
According to my atlas the 'Oldman River' is
well to the west of Alberta.
Eric:
Throw that atlas away.

From:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/gwmg/wcp_home/Pages/O_home.htm

"The Oldman River watershed - introduction
The main stem of the Oldman River flows from
a small alpine lake on Mt. Lyall in the Rocky Mountains to
its confluence with the Bow River east of Taber, Alberta.
The Oldman River and its tributaries drain approximately
23,000 square kilometres of southern Alberta, Canada
and 2,100 square kilometres of northern Montana, United States."

Also see:

Loading Image...

http://www.flyfishalberta.com/rivers/oldman_river.htm

http://www.horizon.ab.ca/ace/OldmanRiverSubBasin.html

http://www.gov.ab.ca/premier/dsp_speech.cfm?content=89&Year=2003

http://www.cd.gov.ab.ca/preserving/parks/lrm/pra/Oldmanr.pdf

http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~kstorey/omrmap.htm

http://www.uleth.ca/vft/Oldman_River/Maps.html

http://www.oldmanbasin.org/orbwqi/about_basin.html

"The Oldman River Basin, located in southwestern Alberta,
extends north to High River, east to Grassy Lake,
west to the Crowsnest Pass in the Rocky Mountains, and
dips south across the 49th parallel into Glacier International
Peace Park in Montana."

In the circumstances I can only describe as bizarre your statement
(above):
" ... the 'Oldman River' is well to the west of Alberta."

-
Daryl Krupa
Eric Stevens
2006-01-22 08:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip recounting of discredited fable>
Post by Eric Stevens
According to my atlas the 'Oldman River' is
well to the west of Alberta.
Throw that atlas away.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/gwmg/wcp_home/Pages/O_home.htm
"The Oldman River watershed - introduction
The main stem of the Oldman River flows from
a small alpine lake on Mt. Lyall in the Rocky Mountains to
its confluence with the Bow River east of Taber, Alberta.
The Oldman River and its tributaries drain approximately
23,000 square kilometres of southern Alberta, Canada
and 2,100 square kilometres of northern Montana, United States."
http://www.uoguelph.ca/gwmg/wcp_home/Maps/O_mapc.jpg
http://www.flyfishalberta.com/rivers/oldman_river.htm
http://www.horizon.ab.ca/ace/OldmanRiverSubBasin.html
http://www.gov.ab.ca/premier/dsp_speech.cfm?content=89&Year=2003
http://www.cd.gov.ab.ca/preserving/parks/lrm/pra/Oldmanr.pdf
http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~kstorey/omrmap.htm
http://www.uleth.ca/vft/Oldman_River/Maps.html
http://www.oldmanbasin.org/orbwqi/about_basin.html
"The Oldman River Basin, located in southwestern Alberta,
extends north to High River, east to Grassy Lake,
west to the Crowsnest Pass in the Rocky Mountains, and
dips south across the 49th parallel into Glacier International
Peace Park in Montana."
In the circumstances I can only describe as bizarre your statement
" ... the 'Oldman River' is well to the west of Alberta."
I thought of that afterwards.

Locally (in New Zealand) that would have been quite comprehensible. If
I could rephrase it,' the Oldman River is well to the western side of
Alberta.



Eric Stevens
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-22 16:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric Stevens
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:20:06 -0500, "t(nospam)kavanagh"
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:32:48 -0500, "t(nospam)kavanagh"
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana.
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they found
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any villages in
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near Alberta.
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
What does that insult have to do which the price of eggs in Alberta?
tk
tk,
usually you seem to be one of the few who tries to the best of your ability
to get hold on references, no matter who sent them. Thus the Kalm note was
and is an observation that not even you who when we discussed Kalm seemed to
at least checked parts of what's up for discussion had read the Verendrye
lines of Kalm.
Your lines were and are still insulting. Yes, I have read Kalm on
Verendrye. Yes, I posted a link to the paragraphs in question. Yes, I
<quote>
Kalm, Pehr
Travels in North America
Vol II.
-- snip ---
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
</quote>
--- snip ----
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
The Verendryes got nowhere near Alberta.
But what about the sons?
What about 'em?
"In 1742, the La Vérendrye sons left Fort Ia Reine in Manitoba,
Canada, for Fort Mandan. From there, they headed west on horseback
to find the Pacific Ocean. On their first visit to the Mandan
village in the 1730s, horses had not yet reached the northern
plains from the Spanish settlements in the Southwest. Thanks to the
horses the sons went on to see the Rocky Mountains near Pincher
Creek to the south of the present city of Calgary, Alberta, on
January 1, 1743. They apparently planted a smaller lead plaque that
was dated March 30, 1743, along the Old Man River, that would
eventually be discovered in 1906. This plaque, while smaller, has
the same date as the South Dakota plaque, March 30, 1743,
but would not be recognized for what it was until 1961 (Parry
1988). Both plaques have the same stamped inscription text on the
front face, but with unique spacing. The back side appears to have
been carved with a knife by the same individual with identical
texts but unique letter spacing and variations."
According to my atlas the 'Oldman River' is well to the west of
Alberta.
I know of no scholars other than Wolter/Neilsen who put
the Verendrye sons' 1742-43 trip as going into Alberta. Do they provide
a reference, or is it their own inference. Do we have any reason to
trust their historiographic/geographic skills?

tk
Alan Crozier
2006-01-22 17:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"t(nospam)kavanagh" <"tkavanag"@(nospam)indiana.edu> wrote in
message news:dr0cbu$5i8$***@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
<huge snip>
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
I know of no scholars other than Wolter/Neilsen who put
the Verendrye sons' 1742-43 trip as going into Alberta. Do
they provide
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
a reference, or is it their own inference. Do we have any
reason to
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
trust their historiographic/geographic skills?
The only modern reference is to an article by Buff Parry in the
Pincher Creek Echo, 9 August 1988. There is also a quote about
the discovery of the inscribed stone from "Peter Kalm's Travels,
Volumes 1 to 4", which ends with the following indication of the
geographical location of the find: "The places where the
pilllars stood were near nine hundred French miles
(approximately 1600 standard miles) westward of Montreal."

The part in parentheses is in Roman whereas the quote is in
italics, so I presume it's a clarification added by Nielsen and
Wolter.

There's a full-page map reproduced from Parry. The original
legend has five quotes from Kalm and matching numbers on the
map. A line starts at Mandan Hidatsa Settlement and leads
north-west to (1): "they came far into the country .. met with
large tracts of land, free from wood ... for the space of some
days' journey". The number 1 is placed in the far north-east
corner of Montana.
Then on to (2): "our travellers met with the impressions of the
feet of grown people and children in a rock". The number 2 is
located at St. Victor, Saskatchewan.

Then Parry's legend becomes unclear. The longer series of
extracts from Kalm runs: "when they came to the west they found
one place in the woods, and again on a large plain, great
pillars of stone leaning upon each other ... the Frenchmen could
not but suppose that they had been erected by human hands ...
sometimes they have found such stones laid upon each other and
... formed into a wall. In some of those places where they found
such stones, they could not find any other sort". Both 3 and 4
are set alongside this quote in the legend, while on the map the
3 is in the Cypress Hills, just across the border into Alberta,
and the 4 is at the Peigan Indian Reserve about 360 km west of
3, on the Oldman River. It's hard to say where Kalm's
information referring to 3 gives way to his information about
point 4.

Finally, (5): At last they met with a large stone, like a
pillar, and in it a smaller stone was fixed." The 5 is placed
near the 4, at Estipah-Sikikini Kots. Pincher Creek is not
marked on that map but it's about 45 km west of 4 and 5.

It would be much easier to discuss this book if other people had
their own copies...

Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-22 19:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Crozier
<huge snip>
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
I know of no scholars other than Wolter/Neilsen who put
the Verendrye sons' 1742-43 trip as going into Alberta. Do
they provide
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
a reference, or is it their own inference. Do we have any
reason to
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
trust their historiographic/geographic skills?
The only modern reference is to an article by Buff Parry
Louis Buff Parry, of Knights Templar fame?
Post by Alan Crozier
in the
Pincher Creek Echo, 9 August 1988. There is also a quote about
the discovery of the inscribed stone from "Peter Kalm's Travels,
Volumes 1 to 4", which ends with the following indication of the
geographical location of the find: "The places where the
pilllars stood were near nine hundred French miles
(approximately 1600 standard miles) westward of Montreal."
The part in parentheses is in Roman whereas the quote is in
italics, so I presume it's a clarification added by Nielsen and
Wolter.
In the original (Kalm, Vol II, p. 281), only the words "French" and
"Montreal" are in italics.
Post by Alan Crozier
There's a full-page map reproduced from Parry. The original
legend has five quotes from Kalm and matching numbers on the
map. A line starts at Mandan Hidatsa Settlement and leads
north-west to (1): "they came far into the country .. met with
large tracts of land, free from wood ... for the space of some
days' journey". The number 1 is placed in the far north-east
corner of Montana.
Then on to (2): "our travellers met with the impressions of the
feet of grown people and children in a rock". The number 2 is
located at St. Victor, Saskatchewan.
Then Parry's legend becomes unclear. The longer series of
extracts from Kalm runs: "when they came to the west they found
one place in the woods, and again on a large plain, great
pillars of stone leaning upon each other ... the Frenchmen could
not but suppose that they had been erected by human hands ...
sometimes they have found such stones laid upon each other and
... formed into a wall. In some of those places where they found
such stones, they could not find any other sort".
This is as I quoted the other day, from the on-line English translation
of Kalm.
(And Eric: note that this is from the senior Verendrye, and does not
specifically
mention the sons.)
Post by Alan Crozier
Both 3 and 4
are set alongside this quote in the legend, while on the map the
3 is in the Cypress Hills, just across the border into Alberta,
and the 4 is at the Peigan Indian Reserve about 360 km west of
3, on the Oldman River. It's hard to say where Kalm's
information referring to 3 gives way to his information about
point 4.
Finally, (5): At last they met with a large stone, like a
pillar, and in it a smaller stone was fixed." The 5 is placed
near the 4, at Estipah-Sikikini Kots. Pincher Creek is not
marked on that map but it's about 45 km west of 4 and 5.
How could one get from the vague descriptions in Kalm to those
rather specific locations? Kalm mentions no distances and only
"far to the west" as directions of travel.

I don't buy it.

For what its worth, I have been to Pincher Creek. It's one of the main
town on the Blood Reserve. A friend on mine, who was the lead singer
with the
Northern drum I sang with in college, was from there, and I went up to
visit
in 1973.

tk
Alan Crozier
2006-01-22 20:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
in
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Alan Crozier
<huge snip>
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
I know of no scholars other than Wolter/Neilsen who put
the Verendrye sons' 1742-43 trip as going into Alberta. Do
they provide
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
a reference, or is it their own inference. Do we have any
reason to
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
trust their historiographic/geographic skills?
The only modern reference is to an article by Buff Parry
Louis Buff Parry, of Knights Templar fame?
That was a new name to me, but I have now done some Googling.
It's not just Templars, the Priory of Sion is also involved.
Buff Parry has some interesting hypotheses about the Cree and
Ojibway Syllabaries (derived from proto-Hebrew), about the
decipherment of the code on Poussin's Reversed Relief of "The
Shepherds of Arcadia" at Shugborough Hall, revealing that the
Grail is buried at Machpelah (the tomb of the Patriarchs), and
explaining what the H stands for in Jesus H Christ.

Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-22 20:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Crozier
in
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Alan Crozier
<huge snip>
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
I know of no scholars other than Wolter/Neilsen who put
the Verendrye sons' 1742-43 trip as going into Alberta. Do
they provide
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
a reference, or is it their own inference. Do we have any
reason to
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
trust their historiographic/geographic skills?
The only modern reference is to an article by Buff Parry
Louis Buff Parry, of Knights Templar fame?
That was a new name to me, but I have now done some Googling.
It's not just Templars, the Priory of Sion is also involved.
Buff Parry has some interesting hypotheses about the Cree and
Ojibway Syllabaries (derived from proto-Hebrew), about the
decipherment of the code on Poussin's Reversed Relief of "The
Shepherds of Arcadia" at Shugborough Hall, revealing that the
Grail is buried at Machpelah (the tomb of the Patriarchs), and
explaining what the H stands for in Jesus H Christ.
Yeah, I was wondering who Buff Parry was too, and Googled him. Makes one
wonder how much trust to put in that article.
But Wolter and Neilsen using him as a source would be consistent with
the rest of their argument.

tk
Eric Stevens
2006-01-22 21:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 15:50:37 -0500, "t(nospam)kavanagh"
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Alan Crozier
in
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Alan Crozier
<huge snip>
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
I know of no scholars other than Wolter/Neilsen who put
the Verendrye sons' 1742-43 trip as going into Alberta. Do
they provide
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
a reference, or is it their own inference. Do we have any
reason to
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
trust their historiographic/geographic skills?
The only modern reference is to an article by Buff Parry
Louis Buff Parry, of Knights Templar fame?
That was a new name to me, but I have now done some Googling.
It's not just Templars, the Priory of Sion is also involved.
Buff Parry has some interesting hypotheses about the Cree and
Ojibway Syllabaries (derived from proto-Hebrew), about the
decipherment of the code on Poussin's Reversed Relief of "The
Shepherds of Arcadia" at Shugborough Hall, revealing that the
Grail is buried at Machpelah (the tomb of the Patriarchs), and
explaining what the H stands for in Jesus H Christ.
Yeah, I was wondering who Buff Parry was too, and Googled him. Makes one
wonder how much trust to put in that article.
But Wolter and Neilsen using him as a source would be consistent with
the rest of their argument.
The Buff Parry referece is to a map with the accompanying text marked
"(Buff Parry 1988)". The bibliography in the back of the bool links
tis to "'Records twice found', The Pincher Creek Echo, Volume 89,
Number 01, Thursday 9th August, 1988, Pincher Creek Alberta'.

I can find 'The Pincher Creek Echo' on the web but no links to
'Records Twice Found' or Buff Parry.

Page 230 of the book contains two photographs of the Pincher Creek
plaque from the Pincher Creek Echo of February 9, 1961.

I note that the bibliography also contains an entry:

---- 2005. "In search of the Venderye Stone." Private report to Drs.
John Polansky and Richard Nielsen their sponsored research on this
subject during the period 2001-2005.

It does not appear as though Wolter/Nielsen have just put their book
together merely by picking up snippets from local newspapers. There
seems to have been a serious background of study into various aspects
going back for several years.



Eric Stevens
Tom McDonald
2006-01-23 01:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Crozier
<huge snip>
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
I know of no scholars other than Wolter/Neilsen who put
the Verendrye sons' 1742-43 trip as going into Alberta. Do
they provide
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
a reference, or is it their own inference. Do we have any
reason to
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
trust their historiographic/geographic skills?
The only modern reference is to an article by Buff Parry in the
Pincher Creek Echo, 9 August 1988. There is also a quote about
the discovery of the inscribed stone from "Peter Kalm's Travels,
Volumes 1 to 4", which ends with the following indication of the
geographical location of the find: "The places where the
pilllars stood were near nine hundred French miles
(approximately 1600 standard miles) westward of Montreal."
The part in parentheses is in Roman whereas the quote is in
italics, so I presume it's a clarification added by Nielsen and
Wolter.
I found four definitions of a 'French Mile' on-line with a quick
search. Two gave it as 14,000 feet or 4,267 meters.

This gives a value of 2,386 statute miles.

One gave it as 1.895 km, or 1 km = .5277 French miles.

This gives a value of 1060 statute miles. (Might there have been
a transposition of a 0 and the 6?)

The last gave it as 1,949 meters.

This gives a value of 1090 miles.

By my (not reliable) math, if 900 FM = 1600 SM, that puts a
French mile at 2.86 km. I didn't find anything like this figure
in my (admittedly quick and dirty) googling.

Even 1600 standard miles, as the crow flies, puts us in, at
best, southwestern Saskatchewan (Sask. portion of the Cypress
Hills) or north central Montana. You just can't get to Alberta
with that figure.

At a rough (and generous) value of ca. 1100 standard miles, we
wind up in western Minnesota/eastern Dakotas, or near Winnipeg,
Manitoba. We know for sure that the La Verendrye's built forts on
Lake Winnipegossis and Cedar Lake, just to the northwest of
Winnipeg. And we know that they are said to have gotten to what
is now La Pas, Manitoba a bit further west on the Saskatchewan
River. This accords roughly with the lower values of the French
Mile, and I have to wonder whether W &/or N did the calculation
themselves; or whether Parry gave the 1600 mile figure, and they
merely relied upon it.

I don't know how accurate La Verendrye's distance measurements
were, and whether he relayed them correctly to Kalm. However, I
am having trouble getting any of these numbers to work with
Parry's map, although the 1600 mile figure gets them pretty close.

<snip>
Peter Alaca
2006-01-23 00:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alan Crozier
<huge snip>
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
I know of no scholars other than Wolter/Neilsen who put
the Verendrye sons' 1742-43 trip as going into Alberta. Do
they provide
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
a reference, or is it their own inference. Do we have any
reason to
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
trust their historiographic/geographic skills?
The only modern reference is to an article by Buff Parry in the
Pincher Creek Echo, 9 August 1988. There is also a quote about
the discovery of the inscribed stone from "Peter Kalm's Travels,
Volumes 1 to 4", which ends with the following indication of the
geographical location of the find: "The places where the
pilllars stood were near nine hundred French miles
(approximately 1600 standard miles) westward of Montreal."
The part in parentheses is in Roman whereas the quote is in
italics, so I presume it's a clarification added by Nielsen and
Wolter.
I found four definitions of a 'French Mile' on-line with a quick
search. Two gave it as 14,000 feet or 4,267 meters.
This gives a value of 2,386 statute miles.
One gave it as 1.895 km, or 1 km = .5277 French miles.
This gives a value of 1060 statute miles. (Might there have been
a transposition of a 0 and the 6?)
The last gave it as 1,949 meters.
This gives a value of 1090 miles.
By my (not reliable) math, if 900 FM = 1600 SM, that puts a
French mile at 2.86 km. I didn't find anything like this figure
in my (admittedly quick and dirty) googling.
Very confusing. Here are some old French miles
from a written source:
Lieue marine ou geografique - 5.56 km
Mille marine (= Engl. seamile) - 1.85 km
Mille geographique - 7.42 km
Lieue commune - 4.44 km
Post by Tom McDonald
Even 1600 standard miles, as the crow flies, puts us in, at
best, southwestern Saskatchewan (Sask. portion of the Cypress
Hills) or north central Montana. You just can't get to Alberta
with that figure.
At a rough (and generous) value of ca. 1100 standard miles, we
wind up in western Minnesota/eastern Dakotas, or near Winnipeg,
Manitoba. We know for sure that the La Verendrye's built forts on
Lake Winnipegossis and Cedar Lake, just to the northwest of
Winnipeg. And we know that they are said to have gotten to what
is now La Pas, Manitoba a bit further west on the Saskatchewan
River. This accords roughly with the lower values of the French
Mile, and I have to wonder whether W &/or N did the calculation
themselves; or whether Parry gave the 1600 mile figure, and they
merely relied upon it.
I don't know how accurate La Verendrye's distance measurements
were, and whether he relayed them correctly to Kalm. However, I
am having trouble getting any of these numbers to work with
Parry's map, although the 1600 mile figure gets them pretty close.
<snip>
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-22 16:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric Stevens
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:20:06 -0500, "t(nospam)kavanagh"
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:32:48 -0500, "t(nospam)kavanagh"
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana.
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they found
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any villages in
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near Alberta.
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
What does that insult have to do which the price of eggs in Alberta?
tk
tk,
usually you seem to be one of the few who tries to the best of your ability
to get hold on references, no matter who sent them. Thus the Kalm note was
and is an observation that not even you who when we discussed Kalm seemed to
at least checked parts of what's up for discussion had read the Verendrye
lines of Kalm.
Your lines were and are still insulting. Yes, I have read Kalm on
Verendrye. Yes, I posted a link to the paragraphs in question. Yes, I
<quote>
Kalm, Pehr
Travels in North America
Vol II.
-- snip ---
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
</quote>
--- snip ----
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
The Verendryes got nowhere near Alberta.
But what about the sons?
What about 'em?
"In 1742, the La Vérendrye sons left Fort Ia Reine in Manitoba,
Canada, for Fort Mandan. From there, they headed west on horseback
to find the Pacific Ocean. On their first visit to the Mandan
village in the 1730s, horses had not yet reached the northern
plains from the Spanish settlements in the Southwest. Thanks to the
horses the sons went on to see the Rocky Mountains near Pincher
Creek to the south of the present city of Calgary, Alberta, on
January 1, 1743. They apparently planted a smaller lead plaque that
was dated March 30, 1743, along the Old Man River, that would
eventually be discovered in 1906. This plaque, while smaller, has
the same date as the South Dakota plaque, March 30, 1743,
but would not be recognized for what it was until 1961 (Parry
1988). Both plaques have the same stamped inscription text on the
front face, but with unique spacing. The back side appears to have
been carved with a knife by the same individual with identical
texts but unique letter spacing and variations."
According to my atlas the 'Oldman River' is well to the west of
Alberta.
Other than Wolter/Nielsen, I have never seen a reference
that puts the Verendrye fils' 1742-43 voyage as into
Alberta. At best it is placed in South Dakota near the
Black Hills. What sort of reference do W/N give for their claim?

tk
Inger E.Johansson
2006-01-22 06:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:32:48 -0500, "t(nospam)kavanagh"
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in Montana.
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they found
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any villages in
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near Alberta.
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
What does that insult have to do which the price of eggs in Alberta?
tk
tk,
usually you seem to be one of the few who tries to the best of your ability
to get hold on references, no matter who sent them. Thus the Kalm note was
and is an observation that not even you who when we discussed Kalm seemed to
at least checked parts of what's up for discussion had read the Verendrye
lines of Kalm.
Your lines were and are still insulting. Yes, I have read Kalm on
Verendrye. Yes, I posted a link to the paragraphs in question. Yes, I
<quote>
Kalm, Pehr
Travels in North America
Vol II.
-- snip ---
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
</quote>
--- snip ----
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
The Verendryes got nowhere near Alberta.
But what about the sons?
What about 'em?
tk
This you probably know:
"In 1743, Louis Verendrye and his brother planted a lead plate on a hillside
overlooking Fort Pierre claiming the land for Louis XV, King of France. The
plate was un-earthed accidentally in 1913 by school children and is on
display in the Cultural Heritage Center."
http://lewisandclarktrail.com/section2/sdcities/pierre/verendrye.htm

"1743 - François La Vérendrye - Part of the great La Vérendrye family fur
trading/exploration dynasty of the early 18th century, François La Vérendrye
was the son of Pierre Gaultier de Varennes, Sieur de la Vérendrye, first
explorer to reach Lake Winnipeg. After its success in establishing Fort
Dauphin at Winnipegosis and Fort Bourbon at Cedar Lake, in 1741, the La
Vérendrye exploration juggernaut reached its westernmost limit in 1743, when
François constructed the small Fort Pasquia (or Paskoya) at the confluence
of the Carrot, Pasquia and Saskatchewan Rivers "
http://www.greatcanadianrivers.com/rivers/north_saskatchwan/history-home.htm
l
Daryl Krupa
2006-01-22 07:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Inger E.Johansson wrote:
<snip>
This you probably know:

" ... the La Vérendrye exploration juggernaut reached
its westernmost limit
in 1743, when François constructed the small Fort Pasquia
(or Paskoya) at the confluence of the Carrot, Pasquia and
Saskatchewan Rivers
(now known as The Pas, Manitoba).
Some historical records suggest that the junior La Vérendrye
may have travelled even further upstream on the Saskatchewan,
as far as the Forks of the North and South branches of the river."

I.e., east of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, and so east of Alberta:

http://www.becquet.com/director/maps/Prince_Albert.htm
Post by Inger E.Johansson
http://www.greatcanadianrivers.com/rivers/north_saskatchwan/history-home.htm
http://www.greatcanadianrivers.com/rivers/north_saskatchwan/history-home.html

-
Daryl Krupa
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-22 16:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:32:48 -0500, "t(nospam)kavanagh"
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in
Montana.
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they
found
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any villages
in
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near
Alberta.
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
What does that insult have to do which the price of eggs in
Alberta?
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
tk
tk,
usually you seem to be one of the few who tries to the best of your
ability
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
to get hold on references, no matter who sent them. Thus the Kalm
note was
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
and is an observation that not even you who when we discussed Kalm
seemed to
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
at least checked parts of what's up for discussion had read the
Verendrye
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
lines of Kalm.
Your lines were and are still insulting. Yes, I have read Kalm on
Verendrye. Yes, I posted a link to the paragraphs in question. Yes, I
<quote>
Kalm, Pehr
Travels in North America
Vol II.
-- snip ---
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
</quote>
--- snip ----
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
The Verendryes got nowhere near Alberta.
But what about the sons?
What about 'em?
tk
"In 1743, Louis Verendrye and his brother planted a lead plate on a hillside
overlooking Fort Pierre claiming the land for Louis XV, King of France. The
plate was un-earthed accidentally in 1913 by school children and is on
display in the Cultural Heritage Center."
http://lewisandclarktrail.com/section2/sdcities/pierre/verendrye.htm
Nowhere near Alberta.

I thought you knew that.
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
"1743 - François La Vérendrye - Part of the great La Vérendrye family fur
trading/exploration dynasty of the early 18th century, François La Vérendrye
was the son of Pierre Gaultier de Varennes, Sieur de la Vérendrye, first
explorer to reach Lake Winnipeg. After its success in establishing Fort
Dauphin at Winnipegosis and Fort Bourbon at Cedar Lake, in 1741, the La
Vérendrye exploration juggernaut reached its westernmost limit in 1743, when
François constructed the small Fort Pasquia (or Paskoya) at the confluence
of the Carrot, Pasquia and Saskatchewan Rivers "
http://www.greatcanadianrivers.com/rivers/north_saskatchwan/history-home.htm
l
Nowhere near Alberta.

I thought you knew that.

tk
Tom McDonald
2006-01-22 23:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:32:48 -0500, "t(nospam)kavanagh"
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by Alan Crozier
But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana,
Um, the earth lodge villages visited by Verendrye were in
North Dakota.
Post by Daryl Krupa
There are no such villages, and never have been, in
Montana.
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Is this
Post by Daryl Krupa
invocation of Montana in the book?
Sorry, that's my carelessness. According to the book they
found
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
the stone "just north of the present Montana border", in
Alberta, Canada. The stone isn't associated with any villages
in
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
the book.
That doesn't make any sense. The Verendryes got no where near
Alberta.
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
What does that insult have to do which the price of eggs in
Alberta?
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
tk
tk,
usually you seem to be one of the few who tries to the best of your
ability
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
to get hold on references, no matter who sent them. Thus the Kalm
note was
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
and is an observation that not even you who when we discussed Kalm
seemed to
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
at least checked parts of what's up for discussion had read the
Verendrye
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
lines of Kalm.
Your lines were and are still insulting. Yes, I have read Kalm on
Verendrye. Yes, I posted a link to the paragraphs in question. Yes, I
<quote>
Kalm, Pehr
Travels in North America
Vol II.
-- snip ---
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
</quote>
--- snip ----
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
The Verendryes got nowhere near Alberta.
But what about the sons?
What about 'em?
tk
"In 1743, Louis Verendrye and his brother planted a lead plate on a hillside
overlooking Fort Pierre claiming the land for Louis XV, King of France. The
plate was un-earthed accidentally in 1913 by school children and is on
display in the Cultural Heritage Center."
http://lewisandclarktrail.com/section2/sdcities/pierre/verendrye.htm
Nowhere near Alberta.
I thought you knew that.
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
"1743 - François La Vérendrye - Part of the great La Vérendrye family fur
trading/exploration dynasty of the early 18th century, François La Vérendrye
was the son of Pierre Gaultier de Varennes, Sieur de la Vérendrye, first
explorer to reach Lake Winnipeg. After its success in establishing Fort
Dauphin at Winnipegosis and Fort Bourbon at Cedar Lake, in 1741, the La
Vérendrye exploration juggernaut reached its westernmost limit in 1743, when
François constructed the small Fort Pasquia (or Paskoya) at the confluence
of the Carrot, Pasquia and Saskatchewan Rivers "
http://www.greatcanadianrivers.com/rivers/north_saskatchwan/history-home.htm
l
Nowhere near Alberta.
350 miles from the closest border with Alberta--in Manitoba!
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
I thought you knew that.
No comment.
Daryl Krupa
2006-01-21 10:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
What does that insult have to do which the price of eggs in Alberta?
tk:
Nothing at all, it would seem, unless he is a member of
the Alberta Egg and Fowl Marketing Board, an official with
the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, or a representative
of a member of The Alberta Egg Producers.
I can't find his name anywhere.
Perhaps he is a silent partner.

- A.l.
Inger E.Johansson
2006-01-21 10:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Daryl,
since when is it an insult if a person who participated in the Kalm debate
last year are asked if he hasn't read Kalm. I take it that you must after
all these years be aware that Kalm did give information about Verendrye's
voyage related to the plates. It's been up here more than once, wouldn't it
had been a natural thing to go looking in a source which support Verendrye's
words and gives a bit more information?

Inger E
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
What does that insult have to do which the price of eggs in Alberta?
Nothing at all, it would seem, unless he is a member of
the Alberta Egg and Fowl Marketing Board, an official with
the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, or a representative
of a member of The Alberta Egg Producers.
I can't find his name anywhere.
Perhaps he is a silent partner.
- A.l.
Alan Crozier
2006-01-21 11:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Daryl,
since when is it an insult if a person who participated in the
Kalm debate
Post by Inger E.Johansson
last year are asked if he hasn't read Kalm. I take it that you
must after
Post by Inger E.Johansson
all these years be aware that Kalm did give information about
Verendrye's
Post by Inger E.Johansson
voyage related to the plates. It's been up here more than
once, wouldn't it
Post by Inger E.Johansson
had been a natural thing to go looking in a source which
support Verendrye's
Post by Inger E.Johansson
words and gives a bit more information?
It was tk who used the word "insult", not Daryl.

Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Inger E.Johansson
2006-01-21 11:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Daryl,
since when is it an insult if a person who participated in the
Kalm debate
Post by Inger E.Johansson
last year are asked if he hasn't read Kalm. I take it that you
must after
Post by Inger E.Johansson
all these years be aware that Kalm did give information about
Verendrye's
Post by Inger E.Johansson
voyage related to the plates. It's been up here more than
once, wouldn't it
Post by Inger E.Johansson
had been a natural thing to go looking in a source which
support Verendrye's
Post by Inger E.Johansson
words and gives a bit more information?
It was tk who used the word "insult", not Daryl.
Alan
Your are right Alan. Sorry Daryl.
but still I can't find that insulting.
tk is one of the very few here who seems to be willing looking into refered
works and quotes no matter who he is discussing with.

Inger E
Post by Inger E.Johansson
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-21 15:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Inger E.Johansson" wrote:

<top posting corrected>
Post by Inger E.Johansson
Post by Daryl Krupa
<snip>
Post by t(nospam)kavanagh
Post by Inger E.Johansson
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
What does that insult have to do which the price of eggs in Alberta?
Nothing at all, it would seem, unless he is a member of
the Alberta Egg and Fowl Marketing Board, an official with
the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, or a representative
of a member of The Alberta Egg Producers.
I can't find his name anywhere.
Perhaps he is a silent partner.
- A.l.
Daryl,
since when is it an insult if a person who participated in the Kalm debate
last year are asked if he hasn't read Kalm. I take it that you must after
all these years be aware that Kalm did give information about Verendrye's
voyage related to the plates. It's been up here more than once, wouldn't it
had been a natural thing to go looking in a source which support Verendrye's
words and gives a bit more information?
You seem to believe that the claim of insult, perception of stalking,
etc., is in the eye of the beholder (usually you). In this case, after I
posted a URL to the citation in question, for you to ask if I had read
it was an insult.

tk
I was
t(nospam)kavanagh
2006-01-21 04:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Inger E.Johansson" wrote:
<snip>
Post by Inger E.Johansson
You still haven't read Pehr Kalm have you?
Kalm, Pehr
Travels in North America
Vol II.

[277] ... In later times there have, however, been found a few marks of
antiquity, from which it may be conjectured, that North America was
formerly inhabited by a nation more versed in science, and more
civilized, than that which [278] the Europeans found on their arrival
here; or that a great military expedition was undertaken to this
continent, from these known parts of the world.
This is confirmed by an account which I received from Mr. de
Verandriere, who has commanded the expedition to the south-sea in
person, of which I shall presently give an account. I have heard it
repeated by others, who have been eye-witnesses of everything tyhat
happened on that occasion. Some years before I came into Canada, the
then governor-general, Chevalier de Beauharnois, gave Mr. de Verandrier
an order to go from Canada, with a number of people, on an expedition
across North America to the south-sea, in order to examine how far those
two places are distant from each other, and to find out what advantages
might accrue to Canada, or Louisiana from communication with that ocean.
They set out on horseback from Montreal, and went as much due west as
they could, on account of the lakes, rivers, and mountains, which fell
in their way. As they came far into the country, beyond many nations,
they sometimes met with large tracts of land free from wood, but covered
with a kind of tall grass, and for the space of some days journey. Many
of these fields were everywhere covered with furrows, as if they had
been ploughed and sown formerly. It is to be observed, that the nations,
which now inhabit North America, could not cultivate the land in this
manner, because they never made use of horses, oxen, ploughs or any kind
of instruments of husbandry, nor had they every seen a plough [279]
before the Europeans came to them. In two or three places, at a
considerable distance from each other, our travelers met with
impressions in a rock; but this seems to have been no more than a Lusus
Naturae. When they came far to the west, where to the best of their
knowledge, no Frenchmen, or European, had ever been, they found in one
place in the woods, and again on a large plain, great pillars of stone,
leaning upon each other. The pillars consisted of one single stone each,
and the Frenchmen could not but suppose, that they had been erected by
human hands. Sometimes they found such stones laid upon one another,
and, as it were, formed into a wall. In some of those places where they
found such stones, they could not find in any other sorts of stones.
They have not been able to discover any characters, or writing, upon any
of these stones, though they have made a very careful search after them.
At last they met with a large stone, like a pillar, and in it a smaller
stone was fixed. which was covered on both sides with unknown
characters. This stone, which was about a foot of French measure in
length, and between four and five inches broad, they broke loose, and
carried it to Canada with them, from when it was sent to France, to the
secretary of state, the Count of Maurepas. What became of it afterwards
is unknown to them, but they think it is yet preserved in his
collection. Several of the Jesuits, who have seen and handled this stone
in Canada, unanimously affirm, that the letters on it are the same as
those which in the books [280] containing accounts of Tartaria, are
called Tartarian characters [long footnote]; and that on comparing both
together, they found them perfectly alike. Not [281] withstanding the
questions which the French on the south-sea expedition asked the people
there concerning the time when, and by whom, those pillars were erected?
what their traditions and sentiments concerning them were? who wrote the
characters? what was meant by them? what kind of characters were they?
in what language were they written? and other circumstances; yet they
could never get the least explanation, the Indians being as ignorant of
all those things as the French themselves. All they could say was, that
these stones had been in those place time immemorial. The place where
the pillars stood was near nine hundred French miles westward of
Montreal. The chief intention of this journey, viz. to come to the south
sea, and to examine its distance from Canada, was never attained on this
occasion. For the people sent out for that purpose, were induced to take
part in a war between some of the most distant Indian nations, in which
some of the French were taken prisoners, and the rest obliged to return.
Among the last and most westerly Indians they were with, they heard that
the south-sea was but a few days journey off; that they (the Indians)
often traded with the Spaniards on that coast, and sometimes likewise
they went to Hudson's Bay to trade with the English. Some of these
Indians had houses, which were made of earth. Many nations had never
seen any Frenchmen; they were commonly clad in skins, but many were
quite naked.


Yes, Ms. Inger E. Johansson, I have read Kalm.

FO

tk
prd
2006-01-19 02:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
When I started reading this book, I was decidedly skeptical
about the authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS), so it
might seem surprising when I say that the best chapter in this
book is the one entitled "Scandals in Scholarship." This
documents the arrogance, errors, carelessness, and even
dishonesty of many scholars who have tried to prove that the
inscription is a hoax. This chapter eloquently demonstrates that
anyone who wants to challenge the arguments presented by Nielsen
and Wolter on the geology and linguistics of the stone will have
to meet very high standards of scholarly behavior.
Other good chapters in this study treat the discovery of the
stone and Wolter's geological examination. The chapter on the
language and runes of the KRS is copiously illustrated with
evidence that the forms of the KRS runes were known in Gotland
in the 14th century; this chapter also includes a lucid
explanation of Easter dating tables. There is a thorough
scrutiny of the Sarsland letters and the Gran tapes, and of
letters and documents connected with the Ohman family. Other
very useful parts of the book are a well-illustrated timeline
for the KRS, biographies and photographs of people connected
with the stone (and some not connected in any way, such as
Bernard of Clairvaux and Jacques de Molay). The book also has a
chapter on the ownership of the KRS, appendices, a bibliography,
and an index.
If the book had consisted just of these solid and serious parts,
and if it were reprinted in a slimmer version with all the
typographical errors corrected as a courtesy to the reader, this
would be a weighty plea in favor of authenticity and an
exoneration of Olof Ohman. Any scholars wishing to refute the
powerful arguments would have to present even more powerful
arguments for a reinterpretation of the geological and
linguistic evidence. In my opinion, the evidence CAN be
interpreted in other ways, but Nielsen and Wolter have
undoubtedly made the task more delicate and challenging. I
gladly leave that job to someone else.
One chapter that could have been omitted from the book is
entitled "My Experience with the Kensington Rune Stone." I felt
a certain unease as soon as I opened the book at this chapter,
for the simple reason that the word "my" in a page header
conflicts with the fact that this is a book with two authors. I
wondered, why not "our" experience with the KRS? This chapter is
by Scott Wolter alone, although he is not named specifically as
the author. This account is interesting enough and could well
have been published as a separate book. But its 138 pages
scarcely fit the description "Compelling New Evidence" in the
book's subtitle. It is too personal and anecdotal for that, and
by occupying a quarter of the book it causes a serious
imbalance. Is co-author Richard Nielsen's experience with the
KRS not worthy of similar treatment? I would prefer to see
Wolter's chapter replaced by a greatly expanded version of
Nielsen's Appendix C, "The Language of the Kensington Rune
Stone." This is a mere six pages in tabular form, with brief
references to negative assertions, countered by equally brief
references to the medieval examples that Nielsen has found of
all the allegedly modern forms on the KRS. This evidence could
have been presented in detail, with proper quotations from the
medieval documents showing the full contexts. This would have
been a great service to any reader interested in the language of
the inscription, and it would have made the book into the
definitive source book on the KRS and an extremely hard-hitting
all-round vindication of the stone.
Unfortunately for the cause of the KRS, however, the authors
have included a chapter which offsets almost all the good work
they have done. It is entitled "The History of Gotland and the
Teutonic Knights" and it is about supposed Templar codes and
symbols. Now, elsewhere in the book Nielsen and Wolter have set
up very strict requirements of any evidence AGAINST the
authenticity of the KRS. For example, they fill a page with
quotes from witnesses on Walter Gran's credibility and on this
basis dismiss the evidence of the Gran tapes as the fictions of
an envious "bullshitter." Another example: Henry Hendrickson
wrote in a letter to Johan Holvik that he and Ohman spoke of
figuring out something that would bother the brains of the
learned, but Hendrickson did not want his name to be used. Scott
Wolter says: "as far as I was concerned, if Hendrickson was not
willing to allow his testimony to be part of the public record,
it was worthless" (p. 382).
Reading the chapter on the Teutonic Knights, I find that the
authors apply a much less exacting standard to their own
evidence. So much here is based on claims which are not part of
the public record. Instead we have poorly documented speculation
about secret knowledge. The first worrying thing is that there
is not a single reference to any serious historical work on the
Templars or the Teutonic Knights, but there are references to
imaginative works such as Baigent et al., "The Holy Blood and
the Holy Grail" and Laurence Gardner, "Bloodline of the Holy
Grail." This is a bit like presenting a hypothesis in astronomy
based solely on some bestsellers about astrology. The claim that
the Templars learned mathematical secrets and esoteric Eastern
religious beliefs in the Holy Land is not backed by any
evidence. To allege that this occult knowledge was subsequently
passed on to the Teutonic Knights is to pile speculation upon
speculation. No facts are cited to support the assertions that
these chivalrous orders were master masons and cathedral
builders. The authors accept Gardner's erroneous notion that the
architectural style was called Gothic from a Greek word meaning
magical. They quote a work on freemasonry from 1905 or 1871
(both dates are given for Pike's book), claiming that before
Jacques de Molay, grand master of the Templars, was executed, he
created four Masonic lodges in the gloom of his prison. Another
astounding but unsupported statement is: "Eastern mysticism
captivated the Knights Templar, particularly what they learned
from the Druids in Lebanon." Here the authors put unquestioning
trust in sources that are every bit as untrustworthy as Walter
Gran. What has happened to their critical judgment?
The authors seem to place great faith in "The Templars' Secret
Island" by Haagensen and Lincoln, whose "premise is that
Bornholm was used as a base for the Knights Templar in the
crusade against Estonia. Their proof [sic] of Templar influence
is in the fantastic mathematics used in laying out the churches,
particularly the round ones, on Bornholm" (p. 98). A map is
reproduced on p. 104, showing a seven-pointed star superimposed
on a map of Bornholm. It can just as easily be read as proof of
the willingness of Haagensen and Lincoln to see a pattern where
none exists. A similar willingness is seen in the authors' own
interpretation of special punch marks on the KRS as a coded
message from the carver.
On page 117 we read: "The Cistercian-Templars are known to have
been a force in the Baltic in 1362." This is not known at all,
but seems to be based on an identification of Cistercians (who
were active) and Templars, who did not exist in 1362 because the
order had been dissolved by the pope fifty years previously.
That little snag is quickly dismissed (p. 109): "It is hard to
imagine that the Templars even missed a beat in Sweden." But is
there any evidence for the claim that there were ever Templars
in Sweden at all? No historians seem to know of it.
Some other claims here seem far-fetched. A portrait of St.
Bernard, founder of the Cistercians and sponsor of the Templars,
is reproduced because the authors read the folds in his sleeve
as the letter M, "an ancient symbol for wisdom." Other claims
are uncheckable because no source whatever is given. Where are
the clams from Klagen [Skagen?] in north Jutland that must have
come with ships from New England in the 13th and 14th centuries?
Who discovered that beaver furs aboard Basque ships 1380-1420
were bailed [i.e. baled] in the Canadian fashion? Why are the
excellent standards of documentation followed in the rest of the
book totally abandoned here?
Speculation abounds in this chapter. On page 115 there is a
picture of a grave slab (G 344) from Gotland showing an extended
S rune with a horizontal bar making it into a cross. The authors
call this "a cross of Templar design," although of course it
need not be that at all, and then ask "Could this crest be
symbolic of the Templar sword and the chalice?" A perfectly
reasonable answer would be "No." On page 118 we see the X rune
with an umlaut that appears on the KRS in the word "läger"
meaning "camp." The authors ask, "could this be a reminder of
Christ's resting two nights in the grave chamber?" Again, a
perfectly reasonable answer would be "No," but the way these
speculations are veiled in rhetorical questions is likely to
influence the kind of reader who believes that Dan Brown's "The
Da Vinci Code" is based on fact.
We are told that Columbus was steeped in Templar lore. Perhaps,
but where is the evidence? A signature of Columbus happens to
have an X that can be likened to the hooked X rune seen not only
on the KRS but also on the Spirit Pond rune stones (confidently
dated by the authors to "circa 1400"). The authors speculate
that Columbus may even have learned of the Kensington party on
his visit to Iceland in 1477, yet the history-loving Icelanders
made no record of any such party, nor did anyone else. The
fourth line of Columbus's signature has an unexplained XMY,
similar to three runes on the KRS with special punch marks. "Did
Columbus see this sequence?" Almost certainly not. Anyway, it
can hardly be called a "sequence," as the three runes do not
stand together on the stone. They appear in that order, but
separated by many runes. And the punch marks might not be
deliberate.
On page 130 the authors write: "There is no mistake that the
Knights Templar and Cistercians firmly believed they were in
possession of supernatural knowledge based on the fantastic
mathematics derived from the pentagon. This was their secret,
and explains their fervent belief in the rightness of their
cause." After a discussion of the pentagon and the Golden Mean,
the authors state on the following page: "Knowing that some
members of the Teutonic Knights used the Golden Mean..." Again
sheer speculation with no evidence, only a reference to
Haagensen and Lincoln. Note also the silent change of the
subject. On page 130 there is "no mistake" that the TEMPLARS
knew all this; on page 131 the authors "know" that the TEUTONIC
KNIGHTS used the Golden Mean. The Teutonic Knights were not the
Templars, yet the assumption that the Templars possessed secret
knowledge which was passed on to the Teutonic Knights is now
presented by the authors as solid fact. It is not, and nothing
can conceal that this is all based on imagination.
I think that the authors have also lessened the impact of the
chapter entitled "The Conclusion" with their Post-Script on the
La Vérendrye Stone. Instead of being a conclusion summing up the
evidence previously presented, this introduces fresh
speculation. It starts reasonably enough by describing the
burial of lead plaques by the La Vérendrye party, as a French
land claim, and the authors postulate - again, quite
reasonably - that the KRS could be a similar land claim. So far
so good. But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana, and this
circumstance leads the authors into speculation once again. The
script was identified as "Tatarian" by a Jesuit. Without
questioning how much French Jesuits in 1743 actually knew about
"Tatarian" script, the authors compare a script from Siberia and
find a similarity to runes. They advise keeping an open mind
about the origin of the stone "because both the Cistercians and
the Teutonic Knights were in close contact with the Mongols in
Russia during the 1200s." Yet the only specific example they
give of such contact is that the Teutonic Knights and the Poles
were defeated in battle in 1240 by the Mongols at Lieglitz
(actually Liegnitz). Earlier (p. 123) the authors mention the La
Vérendrye Stone because, when it was brought back to Paris, it
was sent to Count Maurepas, church warden of St. Sulpice (a
place well known to readers of "The Da Vinci Code"). The
existence of a gilded AVM plaque in St. Sulpice seems to be
sufficient for the authors to see a connection between the La
Vérendrye Stone and the KRS. No attempt is made to link all
these coincidences in a plausible scenario, understandably,
because it would all require a remarkable conspiracy involving
Templars, Teutonic Knights, Mongols, and Jesuits. What is the
point of bringing up the La Vérendrye Stone at all? Since we
know absolutely nothing about this lost stone, its relevance as
evidence for the KRS is nil.
I have devoted a lot of space to just one chapter and the
post-script to the Conclusion, because this differs so much in
character and quality from all the other chapters where the
authors ably present the case for the KRS with hard facts, sober
scrutiny of the evidence, and solid, well-documented arguments.
The chapter of which I am most critical is supposed to contain
"the most compelling proof of all." No matter how many times the
authors use the word "compelling," this particular evidence
fails to compel me, and I wonder how two hard scientists like
Nielsen and Wolter can believe all this.
Scott Wolter commented on a draft of this review and rightly
pointed out that, on page xv of the Introduction, the authors
stress "that there are two distinct aspects to this book": the
factual evidence and the speculation. This was a deliberate
choice, and the reader is duly warned. For me, however, it gives
the book a Jekyll and Hyde character. I fear that the chapter on
the knights' codes will be the point in the book where serious
scholars give up. With this chapter the authors may actually
have damaged the cause of the KRS. They have done a lot of
serious work in their attempt to affix a certificate of
authenticity to the stone, but they have ended up simultaneously
placing a conspicuous sign beside it, warning off everyone
except already convinced believers and the growing numbers of
people taken in by the fiction of Dan Brown and similar
speculative bestsellers about the Templars and the Holy Grail.
Not to worry, I gave up on reading it before I spent money on it.
I let Eric waste all the money on these types of things.
Tom McDonald
2006-01-19 05:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
<snip, marthtar>
Post by Alan Crozier
I have devoted a lot of space to just one chapter and the
post-script to the Conclusion, because this differs so much in
character and quality from all the other chapters where the
authors ably present the case for the KRS with hard facts, sober
scrutiny of the evidence, and solid, well-documented arguments.
The chapter of which I am most critical is supposed to contain
"the most compelling proof of all." No matter how many times the
authors use the word "compelling," this particular evidence
fails to compel me, and I wonder how two hard scientists like
Nielsen and Wolter can believe all this.
Scott Wolter commented on a draft of this review and rightly
pointed out that, on page xv of the Introduction, the authors
stress "that there are two distinct aspects to this book": the
factual evidence and the speculation. This was a deliberate
choice, and the reader is duly warned. For me, however, it gives
the book a Jekyll and Hyde character. I fear that the chapter on
the knights' codes will be the point in the book where serious
scholars give up. With this chapter the authors may actually
have damaged the cause of the KRS. They have done a lot of
serious work in their attempt to affix a certificate of
authenticity to the stone, but they have ended up simultaneously
placing a conspicuous sign beside it, warning off everyone
except already convinced believers and the growing numbers of
people taken in by the fiction of Dan Brown and similar
speculative bestsellers about the Templars and the Holy Grail.
I think that there are, in fact, three books here, not two.

There is the personal book as an impassioned defense (and
vindication, as far as I'm concerned) of Ohman, that should go a
long way to lifting the cloud that's hung over the Ohman family
for 100 years. I think posters here for the most part have come
to the same conclusion, generally on different grounds. But this
as a separate book would have been killer to a wide audience.

There is the speculative book about the Templars, et al., which
is interesting, and a matter for discussion and further
investigation.

And then there is the book I wanted to read--the book laying out
the full facts of the work Wolter and Nielsen did, independently
and together, on the KRS.

AFAIAC, the book has enough useful information to be a valuable
addition to the KRS discussion. Wolter's work is good to read;
although IMHO, there are curious holes in its presentation. He
went into such great detail about meetings and dinners and such;
and yet, he didn't give a synopsis of, for instance, a symposium
of archaeologists and others at, IIRC, Ft. Snelling.

This is just a quick observation, so I may have some details
wrong. I hope that they continue the work. I'd hope that they
would consider splitting it up and writing their professional
findings in the form of papers to present to peer-reviewed
journals for consideration. I'm aware that they both have shown
their work to *their* peers, and gotten supportive feedback. But
it would be far more valuable to the larger academic community if
they publish in a more typical academic format.
Seppo Renfors
2006-01-19 03:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
When I started reading this book, I was decidedly skeptical
about the authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS), so it
might seem surprising when I say that the best chapter in this
book is the one entitled "Scandals in Scholarship." This
documents the arrogance, errors, carelessness, and even
dishonesty of many scholars who have tried to prove that the
inscription is a hoax. This chapter eloquently demonstrates that
anyone who wants to challenge the arguments presented by Nielsen
and Wolter on the geology and linguistics of the stone will have
to meet very high standards of scholarly behavior.
Other good chapters in this study treat the discovery of the
stone and Wolter's geological examination. The chapter on the
language and runes of the KRS is copiously illustrated with
evidence that the forms of the KRS runes were known in Gotland
in the 14th century; this chapter also includes a lucid
explanation of Easter dating tables. There is a thorough
scrutiny of the Sarsland letters and the Gran tapes, and of
letters and documents connected with the Ohman family. Other
very useful parts of the book are a well-illustrated timeline
for the KRS, biographies and photographs of people connected
with the stone (and some not connected in any way, such as
Bernard of Clairvaux and Jacques de Molay). The book also has a
chapter on the ownership of the KRS, appendices, a bibliography,
and an index.
If the book had consisted just of these solid and serious parts,
and if it were reprinted in a slimmer version with all the
typographical errors corrected as a courtesy to the reader, this
would be a weighty plea in favor of authenticity and an
exoneration of Olof Ohman. Any scholars wishing to refute the
powerful arguments would have to present even more powerful
arguments for a reinterpretation of the geological and
linguistic evidence. In my opinion, the evidence CAN be
interpreted in other ways, but Nielsen and Wolter have
undoubtedly made the task more delicate and challenging. I
gladly leave that job to someone else.
One chapter that could have been omitted from the book is
entitled "My Experience with the Kensington Rune Stone." I felt
a certain unease as soon as I opened the book at this chapter,
for the simple reason that the word "my" in a page header
conflicts with the fact that this is a book with two authors. I
wondered, why not "our" experience with the KRS? This chapter is
by Scott Wolter alone, although he is not named specifically as
the author. This account is interesting enough and could well
have been published as a separate book. But its 138 pages
scarcely fit the description "Compelling New Evidence" in the
book's subtitle. It is too personal and anecdotal for that, and
by occupying a quarter of the book it causes a serious
imbalance. Is co-author Richard Nielsen's experience with the
KRS not worthy of similar treatment? I would prefer to see
Wolter's chapter replaced by a greatly expanded version of
Nielsen's Appendix C, "The Language of the Kensington Rune
Stone." This is a mere six pages in tabular form, with brief
references to negative assertions, countered by equally brief
references to the medieval examples that Nielsen has found of
all the allegedly modern forms on the KRS. This evidence could
have been presented in detail, with proper quotations from the
medieval documents showing the full contexts. This would have
been a great service to any reader interested in the language of
the inscription, and it would have made the book into the
definitive source book on the KRS and an extremely hard-hitting
all-round vindication of the stone.
Unfortunately for the cause of the KRS, however, the authors
have included a chapter which offsets almost all the good work
they have done. It is entitled "The History of Gotland and the
Teutonic Knights" and it is about supposed Templar codes and
symbols. Now, elsewhere in the book Nielsen and Wolter have set
up very strict requirements of any evidence AGAINST the
authenticity of the KRS. For example, they fill a page with
quotes from witnesses on Walter Gran's credibility and on this
basis dismiss the evidence of the Gran tapes as the fictions of
an envious "bullshitter." Another example: Henry Hendrickson
wrote in a letter to Johan Holvik that he and Ohman spoke of
figuring out something that would bother the brains of the
learned, but Hendrickson did not want his name to be used. Scott
Wolter says: "as far as I was concerned, if Hendrickson was not
willing to allow his testimony to be part of the public record,
it was worthless" (p. 382).
Reading the chapter on the Teutonic Knights, I find that the
authors apply a much less exacting standard to their own
evidence. So much here is based on claims which are not part of
the public record. Instead we have poorly documented speculation
about secret knowledge. The first worrying thing is that there
is not a single reference to any serious historical work on the
Templars or the Teutonic Knights, but there are references to
imaginative works such as Baigent et al., "The Holy Blood and
the Holy Grail" and Laurence Gardner, "Bloodline of the Holy
Grail." This is a bit like presenting a hypothesis in astronomy
based solely on some bestsellers about astrology. The claim that
the Templars learned mathematical secrets and esoteric Eastern
religious beliefs in the Holy Land is not backed by any
evidence. To allege that this occult knowledge was subsequently
passed on to the Teutonic Knights is to pile speculation upon
speculation. No facts are cited to support the assertions that
these chivalrous orders were master masons and cathedral
builders. The authors accept Gardner's erroneous notion that the
architectural style was called Gothic from a Greek word meaning
magical. They quote a work on freemasonry from 1905 or 1871
(both dates are given for Pike's book), claiming that before
Jacques de Molay, grand master of the Templars, was executed, he
created four Masonic lodges in the gloom of his prison. Another
astounding but unsupported statement is: "Eastern mysticism
captivated the Knights Templar, particularly what they learned
from the Druids in Lebanon." Here the authors put unquestioning
trust in sources that are every bit as untrustworthy as Walter
Gran. What has happened to their critical judgment?
The authors seem to place great faith in "The Templars' Secret
Island" by Haagensen and Lincoln, whose "premise is that
Bornholm was used as a base for the Knights Templar in the
crusade against Estonia. Their proof [sic] of Templar influence
is in the fantastic mathematics used in laying out the churches,
particularly the round ones, on Bornholm" (p. 98). A map is
reproduced on p. 104, showing a seven-pointed star superimposed
on a map of Bornholm. It can just as easily be read as proof of
the willingness of Haagensen and Lincoln to see a pattern where
none exists. A similar willingness is seen in the authors' own
interpretation of special punch marks on the KRS as a coded
message from the carver.
On page 117 we read: "The Cistercian-Templars are known to have
been a force in the Baltic in 1362." This is not known at all,
but seems to be based on an identification of Cistercians (who
were active) and Templars, who did not exist in 1362 because the
order had been dissolved by the pope fifty years previously.
That little snag is quickly dismissed (p. 109): "It is hard to
imagine that the Templars even missed a beat in Sweden." But is
there any evidence for the claim that there were ever Templars
in Sweden at all? No historians seem to know of it.
Some other claims here seem far-fetched. A portrait of St.
Bernard, founder of the Cistercians and sponsor of the Templars,
is reproduced because the authors read the folds in his sleeve
as the letter M, "an ancient symbol for wisdom." Other claims
are uncheckable because no source whatever is given. Where are
the clams from Klagen [Skagen?] in north Jutland that must have
come with ships from New England in the 13th and 14th centuries?
Who discovered that beaver furs aboard Basque ships 1380-1420
were bailed [i.e. baled] in the Canadian fashion? Why are the
excellent standards of documentation followed in the rest of the
book totally abandoned here?
Speculation abounds in this chapter. On page 115 there is a
picture of a grave slab (G 344) from Gotland showing an extended
S rune with a horizontal bar making it into a cross. The authors
call this "a cross of Templar design," although of course it
need not be that at all, and then ask "Could this crest be
symbolic of the Templar sword and the chalice?" A perfectly
reasonable answer would be "No." On page 118 we see the X rune
with an umlaut that appears on the KRS in the word "läger"
meaning "camp." The authors ask, "could this be a reminder of
Christ's resting two nights in the grave chamber?" Again, a
perfectly reasonable answer would be "No," but the way these
speculations are veiled in rhetorical questions is likely to
influence the kind of reader who believes that Dan Brown's "The
Da Vinci Code" is based on fact.
We are told that Columbus was steeped in Templar lore. Perhaps,
but where is the evidence? A signature of Columbus happens to
have an X that can be likened to the hooked X rune seen not only
on the KRS but also on the Spirit Pond rune stones (confidently
dated by the authors to "circa 1400"). The authors speculate
that Columbus may even have learned of the Kensington party on
his visit to Iceland in 1477, yet the history-loving Icelanders
made no record of any such party, nor did anyone else. The
fourth line of Columbus's signature has an unexplained XMY,
similar to three runes on the KRS with special punch marks. "Did
Columbus see this sequence?" Almost certainly not. Anyway, it
can hardly be called a "sequence," as the three runes do not
stand together on the stone. They appear in that order, but
separated by many runes. And the punch marks might not be
deliberate.
On page 130 the authors write: "There is no mistake that the
Knights Templar and Cistercians firmly believed they were in
possession of supernatural knowledge based on the fantastic
mathematics derived from the pentagon. This was their secret,
and explains their fervent belief in the rightness of their
cause." After a discussion of the pentagon and the Golden Mean,
the authors state on the following page: "Knowing that some
members of the Teutonic Knights used the Golden Mean..." Again
sheer speculation with no evidence, only a reference to
Haagensen and Lincoln. Note also the silent change of the
subject. On page 130 there is "no mistake" that the TEMPLARS
knew all this; on page 131 the authors "know" that the TEUTONIC
KNIGHTS used the Golden Mean. The Teutonic Knights were not the
Templars, yet the assumption that the Templars possessed secret
knowledge which was passed on to the Teutonic Knights is now
presented by the authors as solid fact. It is not, and nothing
can conceal that this is all based on imagination.
I think that the authors have also lessened the impact of the
chapter entitled "The Conclusion" with their Post-Script on the
La Vérendrye Stone. Instead of being a conclusion summing up the
evidence previously presented, this introduces fresh
speculation. It starts reasonably enough by describing the
burial of lead plaques by the La Vérendrye party, as a French
land claim, and the authors postulate - again, quite
reasonably - that the KRS could be a similar land claim. So far
so good. But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana, and this
circumstance leads the authors into speculation once again. The
script was identified as "Tatarian" by a Jesuit. Without
questioning how much French Jesuits in 1743 actually knew about
"Tatarian" script, the authors compare a script from Siberia and
find a similarity to runes. They advise keeping an open mind
about the origin of the stone "because both the Cistercians and
the Teutonic Knights were in close contact with the Mongols in
Russia during the 1200s." Yet the only specific example they
give of such contact is that the Teutonic Knights and the Poles
were defeated in battle in 1240 by the Mongols at Lieglitz
(actually Liegnitz). Earlier (p. 123) the authors mention the La
Vérendrye Stone because, when it was brought back to Paris, it
was sent to Count Maurepas, church warden of St. Sulpice (a
place well known to readers of "The Da Vinci Code"). The
existence of a gilded AVM plaque in St. Sulpice seems to be
sufficient for the authors to see a connection between the La
Vérendrye Stone and the KRS. No attempt is made to link all
these coincidences in a plausible scenario, understandably,
because it would all require a remarkable conspiracy involving
Templars, Teutonic Knights, Mongols, and Jesuits. What is the
point of bringing up the La Vérendrye Stone at all? Since we
know absolutely nothing about this lost stone, its relevance as
evidence for the KRS is nil.
I have devoted a lot of space to just one chapter and the
post-script to the Conclusion, because this differs so much in
character and quality from all the other chapters where the
authors ably present the case for the KRS with hard facts, sober
scrutiny of the evidence, and solid, well-documented arguments.
The chapter of which I am most critical is supposed to contain
"the most compelling proof of all." No matter how many times the
authors use the word "compelling," this particular evidence
fails to compel me, and I wonder how two hard scientists like
Nielsen and Wolter can believe all this.
Scott Wolter commented on a draft of this review and rightly
pointed out that, on page xv of the Introduction, the authors
stress "that there are two distinct aspects to this book": the
factual evidence and the speculation. This was a deliberate
choice, and the reader is duly warned. For me, however, it gives
the book a Jekyll and Hyde character. I fear that the chapter on
the knights' codes will be the point in the book where serious
scholars give up. With this chapter the authors may actually
have damaged the cause of the KRS. They have done a lot of
serious work in their attempt to affix a certificate of
authenticity to the stone, but they have ended up simultaneously
placing a conspicuous sign beside it, warning off everyone
except already convinced believers and the growing numbers of
people taken in by the fiction of Dan Brown and similar
speculative bestsellers about the Templars and the Holy Grail.
I would suggest that your first three paragraphs of commentary are
worthy. The fourth is critical on rather spurious grounds and is
neither here nor there. The remainder as you belatedly point out
relates to 2 distinct and separate parts to the book - in fact
probably should be separate "books" to begin with. Your allegation
that the speculations (silly as they are), detract from the other
part, of the examination of the KRS itself is without foundation -as
you say "the reader is duly warned". Your 11 paragraphs on this could
well have been trimmed down to one small paragraph. Your focus in not
on the facts, but on the fantasy.

I see it as one part being examination of the KRS and found it to be
genuine - The second part is an attempt to explain WHY and HOW the KRS
came to be where it is. This is totally irrelevant to the finding of
facts making the KRS genuine. The kite flying about Templars and other
nonsense can simply be rejected and it has NO effect on the serious
part of the book.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McDonald
2006-01-19 05:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
<snipped as requested>
Post by Seppo Renfors
I would suggest that your first three paragraphs of commentary are
worthy. The fourth is critical on rather spurious grounds and is
neither here nor there. The remainder as you belatedly point out
relates to 2 distinct and separate parts to the book - in fact
probably should be separate "books" to begin with. Your allegation
that the speculations (silly as they are), detract from the other
part, of the examination of the KRS itself is without foundation -as
you say "the reader is duly warned". Your 11 paragraphs on this could
well have been trimmed down to one small paragraph. Your focus in not
on the facts, but on the fantasy.
I see it as one part being examination of the KRS and found it to be
genuine - The second part is an attempt to explain WHY and HOW the KRS
came to be where it is. This is totally irrelevant to the finding of
facts making the KRS genuine. The kite flying about Templars and other
nonsense can simply be rejected and it has NO effect on the serious
part of the book.
Have you read the book?
Seppo Renfors
2006-01-20 06:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
<snipped as requested>
Post by Seppo Renfors
I would suggest that your first three paragraphs of commentary are
worthy. The fourth is critical on rather spurious grounds and is
neither here nor there. The remainder as you belatedly point out
relates to 2 distinct and separate parts to the book - in fact
probably should be separate "books" to begin with. Your allegation
that the speculations (silly as they are), detract from the other
part, of the examination of the KRS itself is without foundation -as
you say "the reader is duly warned". Your 11 paragraphs on this could
well have been trimmed down to one small paragraph. Your focus in not
on the facts, but on the fantasy.
I see it as one part being examination of the KRS and found it to be
genuine - The second part is an attempt to explain WHY and HOW the KRS
came to be where it is. This is totally irrelevant to the finding of
facts making the KRS genuine. The kite flying about Templars and other
nonsense can simply be rejected and it has NO effect on the serious
part of the book.
Have you read the book?
Relevance?
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McDonald
2006-01-20 22:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
<snipped as requested>
Post by Seppo Renfors
I would suggest that your first three paragraphs of commentary are
worthy. The fourth is critical on rather spurious grounds and is
neither here nor there. The remainder as you belatedly point out
relates to 2 distinct and separate parts to the book - in fact
probably should be separate "books" to begin with. Your allegation
that the speculations (silly as they are), detract from the other
part, of the examination of the KRS itself is without foundation -as
you say "the reader is duly warned". Your 11 paragraphs on this could
well have been trimmed down to one small paragraph. Your focus in not
on the facts, but on the fantasy.
I see it as one part being examination of the KRS and found it to be
genuine - The second part is an attempt to explain WHY and HOW the KRS
came to be where it is. This is totally irrelevant to the finding of
facts making the KRS genuine. The kite flying about Templars and other
nonsense can simply be rejected and it has NO effect on the serious
part of the book.
Have you read the book?
Relevance?
Answering a question with a question, Seppo?

Have you read the book? If you have, it opens up options
regarding what can and can't be discussed with you; if you
haven't, you are in the same boat as most folks here, and your
ability to discuss the book is somewhat limited.

Now, have you read the book?
Seppo Renfors
2006-01-22 09:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[..]
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Tom McDonald
Have you read the book?
Relevance?
Answering a question with a question, Seppo?
I'm merely tying to make sense of your illogical request.
Post by Tom McDonald
Have you read the book? If you have, it opens up options
regarding what can and can't be discussed with you; if you
haven't, you are in the same boat as most folks here, and your
ability to discuss the book is somewhat limited.
Now, have you read the book?
I note your inability to present any relevance of your request to the
issue at hand - therefor I'll ignore the IRRELEVANT request as being
just that -irrelevant. The issue was the review by Alan Crozier. In
his message <JzGzf.42776$***@newsb.telia.net> he states as
follows:

"The chapter of which I was critical fills 40 pages. The whole
book is 574 pages. So the vast majority of the book deals with
factual evidence."
[end quote]

His review consisted of a total of 4 paragraphs relating to 534 pages
- of which one paragraph was relatively meaningless - He resorted to
write 11 paragraphs for the remainder of the 40 pages of the book - or
about 3 times more for 1/13th of the book that was not more than
speculation in any case and signalled to be so!! I suggest this is WAY
WAY out of balance - and that is what I conveyed in the initial
message.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Crozier
2006-01-22 14:04:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Seppo Renfors
His review consisted of a total of 4 paragraphs relating to
534 pages
Post by Seppo Renfors
- of which one paragraph was relatively meaningless - He
resorted to
Post by Seppo Renfors
write 11 paragraphs for the remainder of the 40 pages of the
book - or
Post by Seppo Renfors
about 3 times more for 1/13th of the book that was not more
than
Post by Seppo Renfors
speculation in any case and signalled to be so!! I suggest
this is WAY
Post by Seppo Renfors
WAY out of balance - and that is what I conveyed in the
initial
Post by Seppo Renfors
message.
Seppo, you are right, my review could have been more balanced
and shorter. The very length may have been self-defeating if it
obscured the main point I was trying to make. So here is a short
review in one paragraph:

----------------------
With the historical, geological, runological, and linguistic
evidence presented in this book, and with their chapter on
"Scandals in Scholarship", showing how academics have invoked
erroneous arguments in their attempts to debunk the KRS, Nielsen
and Scott could have book convinced many neutral readers that
the stone is genuine and could even have persuaded many
skeptics. In either case they would have made the stone a
respectable subject of study both inside and outside academia.
However, with a chapter full of undocumented speculation and
pseudo-science, comparable to a chapter on geomancy in a
textbook of geology, they have drastically reduced the chances
of their arguments being taken seriously by anyone except
already convinced believers.
----------------------

However, I anticipated that some people might want me to back up
my statement about the chapter that I think spoils the book, so
I gave plenty of examples. Too many for your liking.

Now, Seppo, I look forward to your review, and especially what
you say about that particular chapter.

Cheers

Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Tom McDonald
2006-01-22 23:23:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Seppo Renfors
His review consisted of a total of 4 paragraphs relating to
534 pages
Post by Seppo Renfors
- of which one paragraph was relatively meaningless - He
resorted to
Post by Seppo Renfors
write 11 paragraphs for the remainder of the 40 pages of the
book - or
Post by Seppo Renfors
about 3 times more for 1/13th of the book that was not more
than
Post by Seppo Renfors
speculation in any case and signalled to be so!! I suggest
this is WAY
Post by Seppo Renfors
WAY out of balance - and that is what I conveyed in the
initial
Post by Seppo Renfors
message.
Seppo, you are right, my review could have been more balanced
and shorter. The very length may have been self-defeating if it
obscured the main point I was trying to make. So here is a short
----------------------
With the historical, geological, runological, and linguistic
evidence presented in this book, and with their chapter on
"Scandals in Scholarship", showing how academics have invoked
erroneous arguments in their attempts to debunk the KRS, Nielsen
and Scott could have book convinced many neutral readers that
the stone is genuine and could even have persuaded many
skeptics. In either case they would have made the stone a
respectable subject of study both inside and outside academia.
However, with a chapter full of undocumented speculation and
pseudo-science, comparable to a chapter on geomancy in a
textbook of geology, they have drastically reduced the chances
of their arguments being taken seriously by anyone except
already convinced believers.
----------------------
However, I anticipated that some people might want me to back up
my statement about the chapter that I think spoils the book, so
I gave plenty of examples. Too many for your liking.
Now, Seppo, I look forward to your review, and especially what
you say about that particular chapter.
To review it, he'd have to have a copy to read. He worked pretty
hard to not answer my simple question as to whether he had read
the book.
Tom McDonald
2006-01-22 23:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Seppo Renfors
[..]
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Seppo Renfors
Post by Tom McDonald
Have you read the book?
Relevance?
Answering a question with a question, Seppo?
I'm merely tying to make sense of your illogical request.
Post by Tom McDonald
Have you read the book? If you have, it opens up options
regarding what can and can't be discussed with you; if you
haven't, you are in the same boat as most folks here, and your
ability to discuss the book is somewhat limited.
Now, have you read the book?
I note your inability to present any relevance of your request to the
issue at hand - therefor I'll ignore the IRRELEVANT request as being
just that -irrelevant. The issue was the review by Alan Crozier. In
"The chapter of which I was critical fills 40 pages. The whole
book is 574 pages. So the vast majority of the book deals with
factual evidence."
[end quote]
His review consisted of a total of 4 paragraphs relating to 534 pages
- of which one paragraph was relatively meaningless - He resorted to
write 11 paragraphs for the remainder of the 40 pages of the book - or
about 3 times more for 1/13th of the book that was not more than
speculation in any case and signalled to be so!! I suggest this is WAY
WAY out of balance - and that is what I conveyed in the initial
message.
So you haven't read the book. That was far too much work, and
tells me you aren't much interested in discussing what's in the book.
Eric Stevens
2006-01-19 04:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:03:17 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
Post by Alan Crozier
Unfortunately for the cause of the KRS, however, the authors
have included a chapter which offsets almost all the good work
they have done. It is entitled "The History of Gotland and the
Teutonic Knights" and it is about supposed Templar codes and
symbols. Now, elsewhere in the book Nielsen and Wolter have set
up very strict requirements of any evidence AGAINST the
authenticity of the KRS. For example, they fill a page with
quotes from witnesses on Walter Gran's credibility and on this
basis dismiss the evidence of the Gran tapes as the fictions of
an envious "bullshitter." Another example: Henry Hendrickson
wrote in a letter to Johan Holvik that he and Ohman spoke of
figuring out something that would bother the brains of the
learned, but Hendrickson did not want his name to be used. Scott
Wolter says: "as far as I was concerned, if Hendrickson was not
willing to allow his testimony to be part of the public record,
it was worthless" (p. 382).
The problem with both Walter Gran's story and that of Hendrickson is
that there is no independent evidence to confirm that they have any
real significance as far as the KRS is concerned. The emphasis is on
the word 'real'.
Post by Alan Crozier
Reading the chapter on the Teutonic Knights, I find that the
authors apply a much less exacting standard to their own
evidence.
I'm answering this after having read what follows. I think you are
suffering from the fact that while part of the book deals with facts
and part of the book deals with speculation, there is no clear
distinction between the two such as by clearly labeling the various
bodies of text. There is a warning in the final paragraph of the
introduction but it is not emphasised and the mass of text in the book
makes it easy to overlook its importance.

"We also want the reader to understand that there are two
distinct aspects to this book. The first is a comprehensive
presentation of factual evidence that supports the authenticity
of the artifact; the second is our attempt to explain the origin
and meaning of some of the mysterious aspects of the inscription.
It is a fact that the word "grail is" appears when the first six
unique runes in the inscription are read in sequence; it is sheer
speculation that it was what the carver intended. We implore the
reader to avoid confusion between fact and speculation. It has
been a wild and exciting ride chasing after the facts about this
most interesting artifact. We hope you will enjoy reading about
our discoveries and adventures with this amazing stone."

Although this appears very early in the book it is disappointing that
you leave it to the very last paragraph of your review to even mention
this.
Post by Alan Crozier
So much here is based on claims which are not part of
the public record. Instead we have poorly documented speculation
about secret knowledge. The first worrying thing is that there
is not a single reference to any serious historical work on the
Templars or the Teutonic Knights, but there are references to
imaginative works such as Baigent et al., "The Holy Blood and
the Holy Grail" and Laurence Gardner, "Bloodline of the Holy
Grail." This is a bit like presenting a hypothesis in astronomy
based solely on some bestsellers about astrology. The claim that
the Templars learned mathematical secrets and esoteric Eastern
religious beliefs in the Holy Land is not backed by any
evidence.
They certainly had a knowledge of geometry far ahead of most of their
contemporaries. It is probable that individuals outside the order
shared individual fragments of the same knowledge but I am not aware
of any evidence that anyone other than a templar was familiar with the
full extent.
Post by Alan Crozier
To allege that this occult knowledge was subsequently
passed on to the Teutonic Knights is to pile speculation upon
speculation. No facts are cited to support the assertions that
these chivalrous orders were master masons and cathedral
builders. The authors accept Gardner's erroneous notion that the
architectural style was called Gothic from a Greek word meaning
magical. They quote a work on freemasonry from 1905 or 1871
(both dates are given for Pike's book), claiming that before
Jacques de Molay, grand master of the Templars, was executed, he
created four Masonic lodges in the gloom of his prison. Another
astounding but unsupported statement is: "Eastern mysticism
captivated the Knights Templar, particularly what they learned
from the Druids in Lebanon." Here the authors put unquestioning
trust in sources that are every bit as untrustworthy as Walter
Gran. What has happened to their critical judgment?
The authors seem to place great faith in "The Templars' Secret
Island" by Haagensen and Lincoln, whose "premise is that
Bornholm was used as a base for the Knights Templar in the
crusade against Estonia. Their proof [sic] of Templar influence
is in the fantastic mathematics used in laying out the churches,
particularly the round ones, on Bornholm" (p. 98). A map is
reproduced on p. 104, showing a seven-pointed star superimposed
on a map of Bornholm. It can just as easily be read as proof of
the willingness of Haagensen and Lincoln to see a pattern where
none exists.
It might be, but it is not. The analysis demonstrated in "The
Templars' Secret Island" turned me from a sceptic on the subject of
'sacred geometry' to someone who believes there is very much something
in the idea. You have to realise that at that time algebra was very
much in its infancy and arabic numerals had barely started to make
their way onto the European scene. Any significant mathematics was -
had to be - done using geometry. Problems which we can easily solve
today using trigonometry, akgebra and arithmetic were almost
insuperably difficult for Europeans of the 12th-14th centuries. The
analysis of Haagensen and Lincoln revealed that the geometry did not
merely fit seven pointed stars but derived the value of transcendental
numbers such as 'phi'. Haagensen and Lincoln tend to go overboard in
that they extract sacred geometry from anything that will fit,
including the configuration of mountains. Nevertheless, this is not
just more mystic mumbo-jumbo.

As an intersiting aside. Along with Liebnitz, Isaac Newton is credited
with inventing mathematical calculus. It is known that Newton also
provided the mathematical background for the elliptical planetary
orbits of Kepler via his (Newton's) theory of gravity. Modern
demonstrations of the theory of gravity all use calculus and make it
look quite simple. While it may be that Newton first used calculus to
derive the theory for himself, he spent some 20 years creating a
geometrical proof which would be acceptable to his so-called peers.
IMHO this is prima facae evidence that in the 14th century any complex
or powerful mathematical analysis would have required a geometrical
solution. Any organisation which gathered such knowledge to itself
would have an almost unique ability to achieve things beyond the
capabilities of much of the rest of Europe.
Post by Alan Crozier
A similar willingness is seen in the authors' own
interpretation of special punch marks on the KRS as a coded
message from the carver.
All code cracking starts off with speculation followed by trial and
error. Sometimes, to the amazement of the cracker, a meaningful
message seems to appear. That is what has happened with the
interpretation of special punch marks on the KRS.
Post by Alan Crozier
On page 117 we read: "The Cistercian-Templars are known to have
been a force in the Baltic in 1362." This is not known at all,
but seems to be based on an identification of Cistercians (who
were active) and Templars, who did not exist in 1362 because the
order had been dissolved by the pope fifty years previously.
That the head was cut off in France did not mean that all the
tentacles died at the same time. The evidence seems to be that some
indeed lived on, with only minor changes in some cases.
Post by Alan Crozier
That little snag is quickly dismissed (p. 109): "It is hard to
imagine that the Templars even missed a beat in Sweden." But is
there any evidence for the claim that there were ever Templars
in Sweden at all? No historians seem to know of it.
14th century Bornholm was not the same as Sweden. See
http://www.answers.com/topic/bornholm

"Bornholm was divided (1149) between Denmark and Sweden, ruled
(1327–1522) by the Danish archbishops, governed (1525–76) by Lübeck
merchants, and ceded (1658) to Denmark."

There were Templar houses in countries to the south of the Baltic. In
particular there were the Livonic Knights - 'Brothers of the Sword' -
and according to http://www.bartold.com/genealogy/famous.html

"The Brothers of the Sword, was originally a branch of the Knights
Templar".

The Livonic Knights were engaged in war against pirates of the Baltic
as a crusade under the authority of a bull issued by Pope Alexander
III in 1171. See http://www.sdu.dk/Hum/kvj/crusade/leeds2000.htm

"But the papal response did not end with there two bulls. I think it
can be argued that Alexander decided to launch a crusade on two
fronts, in the Middle East and in the Baltic, and to coordinate
them closely. "
Post by Alan Crozier
Some other claims here seem far-fetched. A portrait of St.
Bernard, founder of the Cistercians and sponsor of the Templars,
is reproduced because the authors read the folds in his sleeve
as the letter M, "an ancient symbol for wisdom." Other claims
are uncheckable because no source whatever is given. Where are
the clams from Klagen [Skagen?] in north Jutland that must have
come with ships from New England in the 13th and 14th centuries?
Who discovered that beaver furs aboard Basque ships 1380-1420
were bailed [i.e. baled] in the Canadian fashion? Why are the
excellent standards of documentation followed in the rest of the
book totally abandoned here?
Speculation abounds in this chapter. On page 115 there is a
picture of a grave slab (G 344) from Gotland showing an extended
S rune with a horizontal bar making it into a cross. The authors
call this "a cross of Templar design," although of course it
need not be that at all, and then ask "Could this crest be
symbolic of the Templar sword and the chalice?" A perfectly
reasonable answer would be "No." On page 118 we see the X rune
with an umlaut that appears on the KRS in the word "läger"
meaning "camp." The authors ask, "could this be a reminder of
Christ's resting two nights in the grave chamber?" Again, a
perfectly reasonable answer would be "No," but the way these
speculations are veiled in rhetorical questions is likely to
influence the kind of reader who believes that Dan Brown's "The
Da Vinci Code" is based on fact.
The testing of rhetorical questions like this enables the point at
issue to either be rejected as false or accepted as fact. But first,
the question has to be asked.
Post by Alan Crozier
We are told that Columbus was steeped in Templar lore. Perhaps,
but where is the evidence? A signature of Columbus happens to
have an X that can be likened to the hooked X rune seen not only
on the KRS but also on the Spirit Pond rune stones (confidently
dated by the authors to "circa 1400"). The authors speculate
that Columbus may even have learned of the Kensington party on
his visit to Iceland in 1477, yet the history-loving Icelanders
made no record of any such party, nor did anyone else.
You can't possibly justify saying this. Nobody really knows what the
Icelanders recorded and what they didn't. All we know is what
survived. According to David King http://tinyurl.com/cyrr8 the first
serious attempt (in the 17th century) to gather together and return to
Sweden all of the Icelandic documents then known to exist ended in
tragedy with the ship being lost in a storm.

--- snip ----
Post by Alan Crozier
Scott Wolter commented on a draft of this review and rightly
pointed out that, on page xv of the Introduction, the authors
stress "that there are two distinct aspects to this book": the
factual evidence and the speculation. This was a deliberate
choice, and the reader is duly warned. For me, however, it gives
the book a Jekyll and Hyde character. I fear that the chapter on
the knights' codes will be the point in the book where serious
scholars give up. With this chapter the authors may actually
have damaged the cause of the KRS. They have done a lot of
serious work in their attempt to affix a certificate of
authenticity to the stone, but they have ended up simultaneously
placing a conspicuous sign beside it, warning off everyone
except already convinced believers and the growing numbers of
people taken in by the fiction of Dan Brown and similar
speculative bestsellers about the Templars and the Holy Grail.
It is disappointing that you have left it to the very last paragraph
of your review to advise the reader that the book warns the reader
that it contains speculation as well as fact. It is even more
disappointing that you should let open speculation turn you away from
the facts that Wolter and Nielsen present.

I haven't done a page count but it seems to me you have taken issue
with only a small part of the book and given a false impression of the
merits of its content.



Eric Stevens
Inger E.Johansson
2006-01-19 08:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric Stevens
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:03:17 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
Post by Alan Crozier
Unfortunately for the cause of the KRS, however, the authors
have included a chapter which offsets almost all the good work
they have done. It is entitled "The History of Gotland and the
Teutonic Knights" and it is about supposed Templar codes and
symbols. Now, elsewhere in the book Nielsen and Wolter have set
up very strict requirements of any evidence AGAINST the
authenticity of the KRS. For example, they fill a page with
quotes from witnesses on Walter Gran's credibility and on this
basis dismiss the evidence of the Gran tapes as the fictions of
an envious "bullshitter." Another example: Henry Hendrickson
wrote in a letter to Johan Holvik that he and Ohman spoke of
figuring out something that would bother the brains of the
learned, but Hendrickson did not want his name to be used. Scott
Wolter says: "as far as I was concerned, if Hendrickson was not
willing to allow his testimony to be part of the public record,
it was worthless" (p. 382).
The problem with both Walter Gran's story and that of Hendrickson is
that there is no independent evidence to confirm that they have any
real significance as far as the KRS is concerned. The emphasis is on
the word 'real'.
Post by Alan Crozier
Reading the chapter on the Teutonic Knights, I find that the
authors apply a much less exacting standard to their own
evidence.
I'm answering this after having read what follows. I think you are
suffering from the fact that while part of the book deals with facts
and part of the book deals with speculation, there is no clear
distinction between the two such as by clearly labeling the various
bodies of text. There is a warning in the final paragraph of the
introduction but it is not emphasised and the mass of text in the book
makes it easy to overlook its importance.
"We also want the reader to understand that there are two
distinct aspects to this book. The first is a comprehensive
presentation of factual evidence that supports the authenticity
of the artifact; the second is our attempt to explain the origin
and meaning of some of the mysterious aspects of the inscription.
It is a fact that the word "grail is" appears when the first six
unique runes in the inscription are read in sequence; it is sheer
speculation that it was what the carver intended. We implore the
reader to avoid confusion between fact and speculation. It has
been a wild and exciting ride chasing after the facts about this
most interesting artifact. We hope you will enjoy reading about
our discoveries and adventures with this amazing stone."
Although this appears very early in the book it is disappointing that
you leave it to the very last paragraph of your review to even mention
this.
Post by Alan Crozier
So much here is based on claims which are not part of
the public record. Instead we have poorly documented speculation
about secret knowledge. The first worrying thing is that there
is not a single reference to any serious historical work on the
Templars or the Teutonic Knights, but there are references to
imaginative works such as Baigent et al., "The Holy Blood and
the Holy Grail" and Laurence Gardner, "Bloodline of the Holy
Grail." This is a bit like presenting a hypothesis in astronomy
based solely on some bestsellers about astrology. The claim that
the Templars learned mathematical secrets and esoteric Eastern
religious beliefs in the Holy Land is not backed by any
evidence.
They certainly had a knowledge of geometry far ahead of most of their
contemporaries. It is probable that individuals outside the order
shared individual fragments of the same knowledge but I am not aware
of any evidence that anyone other than a templar was familiar with the
full extent.
Post by Alan Crozier
To allege that this occult knowledge was subsequently
passed on to the Teutonic Knights is to pile speculation upon
speculation. No facts are cited to support the assertions that
these chivalrous orders were master masons and cathedral
builders. The authors accept Gardner's erroneous notion that the
architectural style was called Gothic from a Greek word meaning
magical. They quote a work on freemasonry from 1905 or 1871
(both dates are given for Pike's book), claiming that before
Jacques de Molay, grand master of the Templars, was executed, he
created four Masonic lodges in the gloom of his prison. Another
astounding but unsupported statement is: "Eastern mysticism
captivated the Knights Templar, particularly what they learned
from the Druids in Lebanon." Here the authors put unquestioning
trust in sources that are every bit as untrustworthy as Walter
Gran. What has happened to their critical judgment?
The authors seem to place great faith in "The Templars' Secret
Island" by Haagensen and Lincoln, whose "premise is that
Bornholm was used as a base for the Knights Templar in the
crusade against Estonia. Their proof [sic] of Templar influence
is in the fantastic mathematics used in laying out the churches,
particularly the round ones, on Bornholm" (p. 98). A map is
reproduced on p. 104, showing a seven-pointed star superimposed
on a map of Bornholm. It can just as easily be read as proof of
the willingness of Haagensen and Lincoln to see a pattern where
none exists.
It might be, but it is not. The analysis demonstrated in "The
Templars' Secret Island" turned me from a sceptic on the subject of
'sacred geometry' to someone who believes there is very much something
in the idea. You have to realise that at that time algebra was very
much in its infancy and arabic numerals had barely started to make
their way onto the European scene. Any significant mathematics was -
had to be - done using geometry. Problems which we can easily solve
today using trigonometry, akgebra and arithmetic were almost
insuperably difficult for Europeans of the 12th-14th centuries. The
analysis of Haagensen and Lincoln revealed that the geometry did not
merely fit seven pointed stars but derived the value of transcendental
numbers such as 'phi'. Haagensen and Lincoln tend to go overboard in
that they extract sacred geometry from anything that will fit,
including the configuration of mountains. Nevertheless, this is not
just more mystic mumbo-jumbo.
As an intersiting aside. Along with Liebnitz, Isaac Newton is credited
with inventing mathematical calculus. It is known that Newton also
provided the mathematical background for the elliptical planetary
orbits of Kepler via his (Newton's) theory of gravity. Modern
demonstrations of the theory of gravity all use calculus and make it
look quite simple. While it may be that Newton first used calculus to
derive the theory for himself, he spent some 20 years creating a
geometrical proof which would be acceptable to his so-called peers.
IMHO this is prima facae evidence that in the 14th century any complex
or powerful mathematical analysis would have required a geometrical
solution. Any organisation which gathered such knowledge to itself
would have an almost unique ability to achieve things beyond the
capabilities of much of the rest of Europe.
Post by Alan Crozier
A similar willingness is seen in the authors' own
interpretation of special punch marks on the KRS as a coded
message from the carver.
All code cracking starts off with speculation followed by trial and
error. Sometimes, to the amazement of the cracker, a meaningful
message seems to appear. That is what has happened with the
interpretation of special punch marks on the KRS.
Correct. First I would like to remind you all that the code on the Swedish
Rökstenen took a long time to crack, if it's correctly cracket is an other
thing. Rökstenen was carved much earlier that's correct, but the usage of
secret runes and secret codes related to other factors are wellknown here in
Scandinavia. In that respect the KRS isn't unique.

Secondly and that I think is much more important. We discussed it earlier
here in group and the usage of geometric knowledge and pattern exists not
only in Scandinavia but in France all way up to Scandinavia and I guess
elsewhere as well. so you are right Eric in your comments.

Inger E
Alan Crozier
2006-01-20 22:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric Stevens
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:03:17 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
<much snipped here and there>
Post by Eric Stevens
I'm answering this after having read what follows. I think you
are
Post by Eric Stevens
suffering from the fact that while part of the book deals with
facts
Post by Eric Stevens
and part of the book deals with speculation, there is no clear
distinction between the two such as by clearly labeling the
various
Post by Eric Stevens
bodies of text. There is a warning in the final paragraph of
the
Post by Eric Stevens
introduction but it is not emphasised and the mass of text in
the book
Post by Eric Stevens
makes it easy to overlook its importance.
Although this appears very early in the book it is
disappointing that
Post by Eric Stevens
you leave it to the very last paragraph of your review to even
mention
Post by Eric Stevens
this.
It came as an afterthought when Scott reminded me of the warning
in the Introduction. So I added it at the end. Anyway, it's very
easy to have forgotten the warning a hundred pages later, after
assimilating so much factual evidence, when that chapter begins.
It comes as such a shocking contrast that really feels as if
it's the work of completely different authors.
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
The authors seem to place great faith in "The Templars'
Secret
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
Island" by Haagensen and Lincoln, whose "premise is that
Bornholm was used as a base for the Knights Templar in the
crusade against Estonia. Their proof [sic] of Templar
influence
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
is in the fantastic mathematics used in laying out the
churches,
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
particularly the round ones, on Bornholm" (p. 98). A map is
reproduced on p. 104, showing a seven-pointed star
superimposed
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
on a map of Bornholm. It can just as easily be read as proof
of
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
the willingness of Haagensen and Lincoln to see a pattern
where
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
none exists.
It might be, but it is not. The analysis demonstrated in "The
Templars' Secret Island" turned me from a sceptic on the
subject of
Post by Eric Stevens
'sacred geometry' to someone who believes there is very much
something
Post by Eric Stevens
in the idea. You have to realise that at that time algebra was
very
Post by Eric Stevens
much in its infancy and arabic numerals had barely started to
make
Post by Eric Stevens
their way onto the European scene. Any significant mathematics
was -
Post by Eric Stevens
had to be - done using geometry. Problems which we can easily
solve
Post by Eric Stevens
today using trigonometry, akgebra and arithmetic were almost
insuperably difficult for Europeans of the 12th-14th
centuries. The
Post by Eric Stevens
analysis of Haagensen and Lincoln revealed that the geometry
did not
Post by Eric Stevens
merely fit seven pointed stars but derived the value of
transcendental
Post by Eric Stevens
numbers such as 'phi'. Haagensen and Lincoln tend to go
overboard in
Post by Eric Stevens
that they extract sacred geometry from anything that will fit,
including the configuration of mountains. Nevertheless, this
is not
Post by Eric Stevens
just more mystic mumbo-jumbo.
It's OK to suggest the use of sophisticated geometry and algebra
to build an individual church, or for other practical purposes,
but what's the point of building a whole lot of churches in a
pretty pattern that can only be appreciated on a modern map? And
isn't it wonderful how the sacred geometry always places the
churches in such good locations. If the sacred geometry happened
to place the crucial point of a star in the middle of a bog or
on a steep rocky slope, do you think they would have built a
church there? No, the churches are all built in the same good,
sensible, prominent locations in the villages as the churches
that don't fit into any pattern in the sacred geometry. Are you
going to suggest that the villages all grew up around the
churches?

The only way this sacred pattern could work is if the whole
planet has been designed for the purpose, for example, with the
island of Bornholm placed where it is to make a beautiful
triangle along with Jerusalem and Rennes-le-Chateau (another
sacred place because a priest earned a lot of money around 1900
by selling masses).

Having said that, I admit to being impressed by the way
Haagensen and Lincoln can draw fantastic patterns. Lincoln's
"The Holy Place" left me breathless with amazement. But it just
shows what you can do with a map and a ruler and far too much
time on your hands. And the rules for what to include in the
pattern and what to leave out are rather ad hoc. None of this
proves that people in the Middle Ages actually thought and built
in these terms.
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
On page 117 we read: "The Cistercian-Templars are known to
have
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
been a force in the Baltic in 1362." This is not known at
all,
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
but seems to be based on an identification of Cistercians
(who
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
were active) and Templars, who did not exist in 1362 because
the
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
order had been dissolved by the pope fifty years previously.
That the head was cut off in France did not mean that all the
tentacles died at the same time. The evidence seems to be that
some
Post by Eric Stevens
indeed lived on, with only minor changes in some cases.
Post by Alan Crozier
That little snag is quickly dismissed (p. 109): "It is hard
to
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
imagine that the Templars even missed a beat in Sweden." But
is
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
there any evidence for the claim that there were ever
Templars
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
in Sweden at all? No historians seem to know of it.
14th century Bornholm was not the same as Sweden. See
http://www.answers.com/topic/bornholm
The claim in the book concerned Sweden: "It is hard to imagine
that the Templars even missed a beat in Sweden." Finding things
hard to imagine is otherwise something the authors have no
problem with in this chapter.
Post by Eric Stevens
"Bornholm was divided (1149) between Denmark and Sweden,
ruled
Post by Eric Stevens
(1327-1522) by the Danish archbishops, governed (1525-76)
by Lübeck
Post by Eric Stevens
merchants, and ceded (1658) to Denmark."
There were Templar houses in countries to the south of the
Baltic.

Near enough is good enough, is it?
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
We are told that Columbus was steeped in Templar lore.
Perhaps,
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
but where is the evidence? A signature of Columbus happens to
have an X that can be likened to the hooked X rune seen not
only
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
on the KRS but also on the Spirit Pond rune stones
(confidently
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
dated by the authors to "circa 1400"). The authors speculate
that Columbus may even have learned of the Kensington party
on
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
his visit to Iceland in 1477, yet the history-loving
Icelanders
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
made no record of any such party, nor did anyone else.
You can't possibly justify saying this. Nobody really knows
what the
Post by Eric Stevens
Icelanders recorded and what they didn't. All we know is what
survived. According to David King http://tinyurl.com/cyrr8 the
first
Post by Eric Stevens
serious attempt (in the 17th century) to gather together and
return to
Post by Eric Stevens
Sweden all of the Icelandic documents then known to exist
ended in
Post by Eric Stevens
tragedy with the ship being lost in a storm.
Return documents to Sweden? What Swedish documents had been
removed to Iceland? This is like saying that Lord Elgin returned
the Parthenon frieze to London.

Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Eric Stevens
2006-01-20 22:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:15:59 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by Eric Stevens
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:03:17 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
<much snipped here and there>
Post by Eric Stevens
I'm answering this after having read what follows. I think you
are
Post by Eric Stevens
suffering from the fact that while part of the book deals with
facts
Post by Eric Stevens
and part of the book deals with speculation, there is no clear
distinction between the two such as by clearly labeling the
various
Post by Eric Stevens
bodies of text. There is a warning in the final paragraph of
the
Post by Eric Stevens
introduction but it is not emphasised and the mass of text in
the book
Post by Eric Stevens
makes it easy to overlook its importance.
Although this appears very early in the book it is
disappointing that
Post by Eric Stevens
you leave it to the very last paragraph of your review to even
mention
Post by Eric Stevens
this.
It came as an afterthought when Scott reminded me of the warning
in the Introduction. So I added it at the end. Anyway, it's very
easy to have forgotten the warning a hundred pages later, after
assimilating so much factual evidence, when that chapter begins.
It comes as such a shocking contrast that really feels as if
it's the work of completely different authors.
I tend to agree with you. IMHO it would be helpful to identify
speculative sections of the book as such.

It reminds me a bit of of the old adage Tell them what you are going
to tell them, then tell them, and finally tell you what you've told
them". Mind you going to such lengths should not be necessary outside
of an instruction manual. But it does seem to be necessary to clearly
identify the parts containing speculation.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with speculation. One must
first speculate before constructing and testing a hypothesis.

However, even speculation must contain a good deal of fact and there
will always be people who are prepared to classify facts they disagree
with as 'speculation'. There is no easy way out of this dilemma.
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
The authors seem to place great faith in "The Templars'
Secret
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
Island" by Haagensen and Lincoln, whose "premise is that
Bornholm was used as a base for the Knights Templar in the
crusade against Estonia. Their proof [sic] of Templar
influence
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
is in the fantastic mathematics used in laying out the
churches,
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
particularly the round ones, on Bornholm" (p. 98). A map is
reproduced on p. 104, showing a seven-pointed star
superimposed
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
on a map of Bornholm. It can just as easily be read as proof
of
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
the willingness of Haagensen and Lincoln to see a pattern
where
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
none exists.
It might be, but it is not. The analysis demonstrated in "The
Templars' Secret Island" turned me from a sceptic on the
subject of
Post by Eric Stevens
'sacred geometry' to someone who believes there is very much
something
Post by Eric Stevens
in the idea. You have to realise that at that time algebra was
very
Post by Eric Stevens
much in its infancy and arabic numerals had barely started to
make
Post by Eric Stevens
their way onto the European scene. Any significant mathematics
was -
Post by Eric Stevens
had to be - done using geometry. Problems which we can easily
solve
Post by Eric Stevens
today using trigonometry, akgebra and arithmetic were almost
insuperably difficult for Europeans of the 12th-14th
centuries. The
Post by Eric Stevens
analysis of Haagensen and Lincoln revealed that the geometry
did not
Post by Eric Stevens
merely fit seven pointed stars but derived the value of
transcendental
Post by Eric Stevens
numbers such as 'phi'. Haagensen and Lincoln tend to go
overboard in
Post by Eric Stevens
that they extract sacred geometry from anything that will fit,
including the configuration of mountains. Nevertheless, this
is not
Post by Eric Stevens
just more mystic mumbo-jumbo.
It's OK to suggest the use of sophisticated geometry and algebra
to build an individual church, or for other practical purposes,
but what's the point of building a whole lot of churches in a
pretty pattern that can only be appreciated on a modern map?
God knows?

Maybe to leave their mark for possible identification in the future?

One can only speculate. :-)
Post by Alan Crozier
And
isn't it wonderful how the sacred geometry always places the
churches in such good locations. If the sacred geometry happened
to place the crucial point of a star in the middle of a bog or
on a steep rocky slope, do you think they would have built a
church there? No, the churches are all built in the same good,
sensible, prominent locations in the villages as the churches
that don't fit into any pattern in the sacred geometry. Are you
going to suggest that the villages all grew up around the
churches?
I don't know. Does anyone?
Post by Alan Crozier
The only way this sacred pattern could work is if the whole
planet has been designed for the purpose, for example, with the
island of Bornholm placed where it is to make a beautiful
triangle along with Jerusalem and Rennes-le-Chateau (another
sacred place because a priest earned a lot of money around 1900
by selling masses).
It's possible to get carried away with this, such as when identifying
Ley Lines all over the countryside. Some of it must be chance but I
don't think chance is a sufficiently good explanation for the claimed
precision of the Bornholm lay out.
Post by Alan Crozier
Having said that, I admit to being impressed by the way
Haagensen and Lincoln can draw fantastic patterns. Lincoln's
"The Holy Place" left me breathless with amazement. But it just
shows what you can do with a map and a ruler and far too much
time on your hands. And the rules for what to include in the
pattern and what to leave out are rather ad hoc. None of this
proves that people in the Middle Ages actually thought and built
in these terms.
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
On page 117 we read: "The Cistercian-Templars are known to
have
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
been a force in the Baltic in 1362." This is not known at
all,
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
but seems to be based on an identification of Cistercians
(who
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
were active) and Templars, who did not exist in 1362 because
the
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
order had been dissolved by the pope fifty years previously.
That the head was cut off in France did not mean that all the
tentacles died at the same time. The evidence seems to be that
some
Post by Eric Stevens
indeed lived on, with only minor changes in some cases.
Post by Alan Crozier
That little snag is quickly dismissed (p. 109): "It is hard
to
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
imagine that the Templars even missed a beat in Sweden." But
is
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
there any evidence for the claim that there were ever
Templars
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
in Sweden at all? No historians seem to know of it.
14th century Bornholm was not the same as Sweden. See
http://www.answers.com/topic/bornholm
The claim in the book concerned Sweden: "It is hard to imagine
that the Templars even missed a beat in Sweden." Finding things
hard to imagine is otherwise something the authors have no
problem with in this chapter.
Post by Eric Stevens
"Bornholm was divided (1149) between Denmark and Sweden,
ruled
Post by Eric Stevens
(1327-1522) by the Danish archbishops, governed (1525-76)
by Lübeck
Post by Eric Stevens
merchants, and ceded (1658) to Denmark."
There were Templar houses in countries to the south of the
Baltic.
Near enough is good enough, is it?
The houses were only their local headquarters. It is to be expected
that the Templars would have outlying sites while they were engaged in
fighting the pirates of the Baltic.
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
We are told that Columbus was steeped in Templar lore.
Perhaps,
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
but where is the evidence? A signature of Columbus happens to
have an X that can be likened to the hooked X rune seen not
only
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
on the KRS but also on the Spirit Pond rune stones
(confidently
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
dated by the authors to "circa 1400"). The authors speculate
that Columbus may even have learned of the Kensington party
on
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
his visit to Iceland in 1477, yet the history-loving
Icelanders
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
made no record of any such party, nor did anyone else.
You can't possibly justify saying this. Nobody really knows
what the
Post by Eric Stevens
Icelanders recorded and what they didn't. All we know is what
survived. According to David King http://tinyurl.com/cyrr8 the
first
Post by Eric Stevens
serious attempt (in the 17th century) to gather together and
then known to exist
ended in
Post by Eric Stevens
tragedy with the ship being lost in a storm.
Return documents to Sweden? What Swedish documents had been
removed to Iceland? This is like saying that Lord Elgin returned
the Parthenon frieze to London.
It might be if that is what I said. In fact I said "...return to
Sweden all of the Icelandic documents...". Would the word 'convey'
have suited you better?



Eric Stevens
JerryT
2006-01-20 23:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric Stevens
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:15:59 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
snip
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
Are you
going to suggest that the villages all grew up around the
churches?
I don't know. Does anyone?
Not all but in fact it was quite common in Sweden. The churches was
placed so that everyone should have easy access to a church.
It become a center of the community and often buildings asscociated
with community activities was built near the church and then the village
was a fact. It's even in the language as 'kyrkbyar', meaning church
villages.

JerryT
Inger E.Johansson
2006-01-21 00:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JerryT
Post by Eric Stevens
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:15:59 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
snip
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
Are you
going to suggest that the villages all grew up around the
churches?
I don't know. Does anyone?
Not all but in fact it was quite common in Sweden. The churches was
placed so that everyone should have easy access to a church.
Not correct Jerry. While it after 1400 became a common practise, that wasn't
at all the same for the early churches. Many of them were built by noblemen
and then either close to their castles or larger farms; others were built
close to waterways, this was especially common for the earliest churches.
80% were built within 800 meters from a major farm and/or a for the period
in question most used waterway. But the rest of the early churches seems to
have been built on boarder between villages. This was especially common in
areas where there were many old 'radby' and where the 'solskiftet' had
impacts on the locations within a 'härad'.
Post by JerryT
It become a center of the community and often buildings asscociated
with community activities was built near the church and then the village
was a fact. It's even in the language as 'kyrkbyar', meaning church
villages.
That's later not before 1400 and in most areas not at all before Gustav
Vasa's days.

Inger E
Post by JerryT
JerryT
Inger E.Johansson
2006-01-21 00:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric Stevens
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:15:59 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by Eric Stevens
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:03:17 GMT, "Alan Crozier"
<much snipped here and there>
Post by Eric Stevens
I'm answering this after having read what follows. I think you
are
Post by Eric Stevens
suffering from the fact that while part of the book deals with
facts
Post by Eric Stevens
and part of the book deals with speculation, there is no clear
distinction between the two such as by clearly labeling the
various
Post by Eric Stevens
bodies of text. There is a warning in the final paragraph of
the
Post by Eric Stevens
introduction but it is not emphasised and the mass of text in
the book
Post by Eric Stevens
makes it easy to overlook its importance.
Although this appears very early in the book it is
disappointing that
Post by Eric Stevens
you leave it to the very last paragraph of your review to even
mention
Post by Eric Stevens
this.
It came as an afterthought when Scott reminded me of the warning
in the Introduction. So I added it at the end. Anyway, it's very
easy to have forgotten the warning a hundred pages later, after
assimilating so much factual evidence, when that chapter begins.
It comes as such a shocking contrast that really feels as if
it's the work of completely different authors.
I tend to agree with you. IMHO it would be helpful to identify
speculative sections of the book as such.
It reminds me a bit of of the old adage Tell them what you are going
to tell them, then tell them, and finally tell you what you've told
them". Mind you going to such lengths should not be necessary outside
of an instruction manual. But it does seem to be necessary to clearly
identify the parts containing speculation.
Having said that, there is nothing wrong with speculation. One must
first speculate before constructing and testing a hypothesis.
However, even speculation must contain a good deal of fact and there
will always be people who are prepared to classify facts they disagree
with as 'speculation'. There is no easy way out of this dilemma.
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
The authors seem to place great faith in "The Templars'
Secret
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
Island" by Haagensen and Lincoln, whose "premise is that
Bornholm was used as a base for the Knights Templar in the
crusade against Estonia. Their proof [sic] of Templar
influence
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
is in the fantastic mathematics used in laying out the
churches,
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
particularly the round ones, on Bornholm" (p. 98). A map is
reproduced on p. 104, showing a seven-pointed star
superimposed
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
on a map of Bornholm. It can just as easily be read as proof
of
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
the willingness of Haagensen and Lincoln to see a pattern
where
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
none exists.
It might be, but it is not. The analysis demonstrated in "The
Templars' Secret Island" turned me from a sceptic on the
subject of
Post by Eric Stevens
'sacred geometry' to someone who believes there is very much
something
Post by Eric Stevens
in the idea. You have to realise that at that time algebra was
very
Post by Eric Stevens
much in its infancy and arabic numerals had barely started to
make
Post by Eric Stevens
their way onto the European scene. Any significant mathematics
was -
Post by Eric Stevens
had to be - done using geometry. Problems which we can easily
solve
Post by Eric Stevens
today using trigonometry, akgebra and arithmetic were almost
insuperably difficult for Europeans of the 12th-14th
centuries. The
Post by Eric Stevens
analysis of Haagensen and Lincoln revealed that the geometry
did not
Post by Eric Stevens
merely fit seven pointed stars but derived the value of
transcendental
Post by Eric Stevens
numbers such as 'phi'. Haagensen and Lincoln tend to go
overboard in
Post by Eric Stevens
that they extract sacred geometry from anything that will fit,
including the configuration of mountains. Nevertheless, this
is not
Post by Eric Stevens
just more mystic mumbo-jumbo.
It's OK to suggest the use of sophisticated geometry and algebra
to build an individual church, or for other practical purposes,
but what's the point of building a whole lot of churches in a
pretty pattern that can only be appreciated on a modern map?
God knows?
Maybe to leave their mark for possible identification in the future?
One can only speculate. :-)
Post by Alan Crozier
And
isn't it wonderful how the sacred geometry always places the
churches in such good locations. If the sacred geometry happened
to place the crucial point of a star in the middle of a bog or
on a steep rocky slope, do you think they would have built a
church there? No, the churches are all built in the same good,
sensible, prominent locations in the villages as the churches
that don't fit into any pattern in the sacred geometry. Are you
going to suggest that the villages all grew up around the
churches?
I don't know. Does anyone?
Eric,
we did discuss a Swedish dissertation in the subject last year. Leif
Sahlqvist, he graduated from same school as I did, same year, friend of one
of my own schoolmates from "ground-school".
Sahlqvist Leif, Det rituella landskapet : kosmografiska uttrycksformer och
territoriell struktur = The ritual landscape : cosmographic expression and
territorial Uppsala : Univ. : Institutionen för arkeologi och antik
historia, 2000 Diss. Uppsala : Univ.
ISBN: 91-506-1399-5
where he deals with some of these geometric aspects.
When I spoke to Leif summer 2005 he were checking a per-viewed work before
publishing in a book more results from studies and analyses of churches
locations.

Inger E
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
The only way this sacred pattern could work is if the whole
planet has been designed for the purpose, for example, with the
island of Bornholm placed where it is to make a beautiful
triangle along with Jerusalem and Rennes-le-Chateau (another
sacred place because a priest earned a lot of money around 1900
by selling masses).
It's possible to get carried away with this, such as when identifying
Ley Lines all over the countryside. Some of it must be chance but I
don't think chance is a sufficiently good explanation for the claimed
precision of the Bornholm lay out.
Post by Alan Crozier
Having said that, I admit to being impressed by the way
Haagensen and Lincoln can draw fantastic patterns. Lincoln's
"The Holy Place" left me breathless with amazement. But it just
shows what you can do with a map and a ruler and far too much
time on your hands. And the rules for what to include in the
pattern and what to leave out are rather ad hoc. None of this
proves that people in the Middle Ages actually thought and built
in these terms.
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
On page 117 we read: "The Cistercian-Templars are known to
have
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
been a force in the Baltic in 1362." This is not known at
all,
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
but seems to be based on an identification of Cistercians
(who
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
were active) and Templars, who did not exist in 1362 because
the
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
order had been dissolved by the pope fifty years previously.
That the head was cut off in France did not mean that all the
tentacles died at the same time. The evidence seems to be that
some
Post by Eric Stevens
indeed lived on, with only minor changes in some cases.
Post by Alan Crozier
That little snag is quickly dismissed (p. 109): "It is hard
to
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
imagine that the Templars even missed a beat in Sweden." But
is
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
there any evidence for the claim that there were ever
Templars
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
in Sweden at all? No historians seem to know of it.
14th century Bornholm was not the same as Sweden. See
http://www.answers.com/topic/bornholm
The claim in the book concerned Sweden: "It is hard to imagine
that the Templars even missed a beat in Sweden." Finding things
hard to imagine is otherwise something the authors have no
problem with in this chapter.
Post by Eric Stevens
"Bornholm was divided (1149) between Denmark and Sweden,
ruled
Post by Eric Stevens
(1327-1522) by the Danish archbishops, governed (1525-76)
by Lübeck
Post by Eric Stevens
merchants, and ceded (1658) to Denmark."
There were Templar houses in countries to the south of the
Baltic.
Near enough is good enough, is it?
The houses were only their local headquarters. It is to be expected
that the Templars would have outlying sites while they were engaged in
fighting the pirates of the Baltic.
Post by Alan Crozier
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
We are told that Columbus was steeped in Templar lore.
Perhaps,
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
but where is the evidence? A signature of Columbus happens to
have an X that can be likened to the hooked X rune seen not
only
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
on the KRS but also on the Spirit Pond rune stones
(confidently
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
dated by the authors to "circa 1400"). The authors speculate
that Columbus may even have learned of the Kensington party
on
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
his visit to Iceland in 1477, yet the history-loving
Icelanders
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Alan Crozier
made no record of any such party, nor did anyone else.
You can't possibly justify saying this. Nobody really knows
what the
Post by Eric Stevens
Icelanders recorded and what they didn't. All we know is what
survived. According to David King http://tinyurl.com/cyrr8 the
first
Post by Eric Stevens
serious attempt (in the 17th century) to gather together and
then known to exist
ended in
Post by Eric Stevens
tragedy with the ship being lost in a storm.
Return documents to Sweden? What Swedish documents had been
removed to Iceland? This is like saying that Lord Elgin returned
the Parthenon frieze to London.
It might be if that is what I said. In fact I said "...return to
Sweden all of the Icelandic documents...". Would the word 'convey'
have suited you better?
Eric Stevens
m***@hotmail.com
2006-01-19 06:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
Quite a good review, I should say. Perhaps a bit long on the
negatives, but many of the important points regarding the Compelling
Evidence have already been brought forth (at least in sci archaeology).

I do disagree with you on one point however - I think Wolter's
narrative of his experiences with the stone is important. It provides
the common reader (those who have not debated minutiae endlessly for
years) a chance to understand the process that Wolter went through in
his work. I think it reveals that the conclusions did not just jump
out of the air, but were the result of continured study and evaluation.

Further it personalizes the work. Many good books of science go this
route to some degree or another (Asimov frequently used this device in
his non-fiction works), and creates a sense of discovery. It is a
popular method, not a straight scientific one, but the book is meant
for the general reader as well as the expert.

It is my understanding that Wolter did ask Nielsen to present a similar
section from his vantage point, and this may be something that will
come in the future, as well as more from Wolter on the past year or so
that was not covered in this edition.

This book is something of a work in progress. There is more to come
out, as theories are refined and more information is gathered. That is
why Nielsen and Wolter have maintained the publication rights - so that
an updated (and more polished) volume of the work can be put out at a
future date.

Michael
Alan Crozier
2006-01-19 16:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The
Kensington
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by Alan Crozier
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake
Superior
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Post by Alan Crozier
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
Quite a good review, I should say. Perhaps a bit long on the
negatives, but many of the important points regarding the
Compelling
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Evidence have already been brought forth (at least in sci
archaeology).

Long on the negatives, yes, but sometimes there is less need to
say in detail why you think a book is good. I wanted to justify
in detail my negative opinion of one chapter, in the hope that
the authors will improve it in a later edition. That's why my
criticism was not trimmed down to one small paragraph, as Seppo
suggested.

As further evidence of my desire to improve the next edition of
the book, I have sent the authors a list of 126 errata.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
I do disagree with you on one point however - I think
Wolter's
Post by m***@hotmail.com
narrative of his experiences with the stone is important. It
provides
Post by m***@hotmail.com
the common reader (those who have not debated minutiae
endlessly for
Post by m***@hotmail.com
years) a chance to understand the process that Wolter went
through in
Post by m***@hotmail.com
his work. I think it reveals that the conclusions did not
just jump
Post by m***@hotmail.com
out of the air, but were the result of continured study and
evaluation.

As you yourself wrote in your preliminary review, "Scott writes
of his personal experiences with the investigation (which could
be a book in itself)." I suggested separate publication.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Further it personalizes the work. Many good books of science
go this
Post by m***@hotmail.com
route to some degree or another (Asimov frequently used this
device in
Post by m***@hotmail.com
his non-fiction works), and creates a sense of discovery. It
is a
Post by m***@hotmail.com
popular method, not a straight scientific one, but the book is
meant
Post by m***@hotmail.com
for the general reader as well as the expert.
It is my understanding that Wolter did ask Nielsen to present
a similar
Post by m***@hotmail.com
section from his vantage point, and this may be something that
will
Post by m***@hotmail.com
come in the future, as well as more from Wolter on the past
year or so
Post by m***@hotmail.com
that was not covered in this edition.
This book is something of a work in progress. There is more
to come
Post by m***@hotmail.com
out, as theories are refined and more information is gathered.
That is
Post by m***@hotmail.com
why Nielsen and Wolter have maintained the publication
rights - so that
Post by m***@hotmail.com
an updated (and more polished) volume of the work can be put
out at a
Post by m***@hotmail.com
future date.
Michael
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
JerryT
2006-01-19 19:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
Thank you, Alan Crozier.

snip
Post by Alan Crozier
Speculation abounds in this chapter. On page 115 there is a
picture of a grave slab (G 344) from Gotland showing an extended
S rune with a horizontal bar making it into a cross. The authors
call this "a cross of Templar design," although of course it
need not be that at all, and then ask "Could this crest be
symbolic of the Templar sword and the chalice?" A perfectly
reasonable answer would be "No."
Do they say that it is a owners mark and not a runic sign.

Christian symbolism was quite common when designing
these marks. For comparision...

http://www.snevide.com/Elisabeth/bomerke/bomerke.htm
(Was Mats Sefrede from Öja a stone mason?)


http://sydaby.eget.net/swe/bo1.htm
(I wonder what the claim would be if it
was Matts Norrgrann's mark from 1779?)

Also this fragment of a slab is dated to late medieval
(14-1500) because of the shape of the z-rune on it.

www.raa.se/arkeologi/pdf/G_Visby.pdf (page 13)


JerryT
Post by Alan Crozier
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Peter Alaca
2006-01-19 20:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JerryT
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
Thank you, Alan Crozier.
snip
Post by Alan Crozier
Speculation abounds in this chapter. On page 115 there is a
picture of a grave slab (G 344) from Gotland showing an extended
S rune with a horizontal bar making it into a cross. The authors
call this "a cross of Templar design," although of course it
need not be that at all, and then ask "Could this crest be
symbolic of the Templar sword and the chalice?" A perfectly
reasonable answer would be "No."
Do they say that it is a owners mark and not a runic sign.
Christian symbolism was quite common when designing
these marks. For comparision...
http://www.snevide.com/Elisabeth/bomerke/bomerke.htm
(Was Mats Sefrede from Öja a stone mason?)
http://sydaby.eget.net/swe/bo1.htm
(I wonder what the claim would be if it
was Matts Norrgrann's mark from 1779?)
Good questions.
This are marks expected from
stonemasons and carpenters
Post by JerryT
Also this fragment of a slab is dated to late medieval
(14-1500) because of the shape of the z-rune on it.
www.raa.se/arkeologi/pdf/G_Visby.pdf (page 13)
That is the "Templar" G 344.
--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°
Alan Crozier
2006-01-19 22:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JerryT
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The
Kensington
Post by JerryT
Post by Alan Crozier
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake
Superior
Post by JerryT
Post by Alan Crozier
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
Thank you, Alan Crozier.
snip
Post by Alan Crozier
Speculation abounds in this chapter. On page 115 there is a
picture of a grave slab (G 344) from Gotland showing an
extended
Post by JerryT
Post by Alan Crozier
S rune with a horizontal bar making it into a cross. The
authors
Post by JerryT
Post by Alan Crozier
call this "a cross of Templar design," although of course it
need not be that at all, and then ask "Could this crest be
symbolic of the Templar sword and the chalice?" A perfectly
reasonable answer would be "No."
Do they say that it is a owners mark and not a runic sign.
Grave slabs don't usually have owner's marks, do they? It's a
cross with a strnage angle added to it.
Post by JerryT
Christian symbolism was quite common when designing
these marks. For comparision...
Christian symbolism is even more common on graves!
Post by JerryT
http://www.snevide.com/Elisabeth/bomerke/bomerke.htm
(Was Mats Sefrede from Öja a stone mason?)
http://sydaby.eget.net/swe/bo1.htm
(I wonder what the claim would be if it
was Matts Norrgrann's mark from 1779?)
Also this fragment of a slab is dated to late medieval
(14-1500) because of the shape of the z-rune on it.
www.raa.se/arkeologi/pdf/G_Visby.pdf (page 13)
JerryT
Hälsningar
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Eric Stevens
2006-01-20 02:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JerryT
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
Thank you, Alan Crozier.
snip
Post by Alan Crozier
Speculation abounds in this chapter. On page 115 there is a
picture of a grave slab (G 344) from Gotland showing an extended
S rune with a horizontal bar making it into a cross. The authors
call this "a cross of Templar design," although of course it
need not be that at all, and then ask "Could this crest be
symbolic of the Templar sword and the chalice?" A perfectly
reasonable answer would be "No."
Do they say that it is a owners mark and not a runic sign.
Christian symbolism was quite common when designing
these marks. For comparision...
http://www.snevide.com/Elisabeth/bomerke/bomerke.htm
(Was Mats Sefrede from Öja a stone mason?)
http://sydaby.eget.net/swe/bo1.htm
(I wonder what the claim would be if it
was Matts Norrgrann's mark from 1779?)
Also this fragment of a slab is dated to late medieval
(14-1500) because of the shape of the z-rune on it.
www.raa.se/arkeologi/pdf/G_Visby.pdf (page 13)
This last one is the one. What is it about?



Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
2006-01-20 10:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by JerryT
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
Thank you, Alan Crozier.
snip
Post by Alan Crozier
Speculation abounds in this chapter. On page 115 there is a
picture of a grave slab (G 344) from Gotland showing an extended
S rune with a horizontal bar making it into a cross. The authors
call this "a cross of Templar design," although of course it
need not be that at all, and then ask "Could this crest be
symbolic of the Templar sword and the chalice?" A perfectly
reasonable answer would be "No."
Do they say that it is a owners mark and not a runic sign.
Christian symbolism was quite common when designing
these marks. For comparision...
http://www.snevide.com/Elisabeth/bomerke/bomerke.htm
(Was Mats Sefrede from Öja a stone mason?)
http://sydaby.eget.net/swe/bo1.htm
(I wonder what the claim would be if it
was Matts Norrgrann's mark from 1779?)
Also this fragment of a slab is dated to late medieval
(14-1500) because of the shape of the z-rune on it.
www.raa.se/arkeologi/pdf/G_Visby.pdf (page 13)
This last one is the one. What is it about?
That gravestones are difficult to date, but that z-runes
point to the 15th-16th century (14-1500tal).
That was what Jerry already said.
--
p.a.
Eric Stevens
2006-01-20 20:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Alaca
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by JerryT
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
Thank you, Alan Crozier.
snip
Post by Alan Crozier
Speculation abounds in this chapter. On page 115 there is a
picture of a grave slab (G 344) from Gotland showing an extended
S rune with a horizontal bar making it into a cross. The authors
call this "a cross of Templar design," although of course it
need not be that at all, and then ask "Could this crest be
symbolic of the Templar sword and the chalice?" A perfectly
reasonable answer would be "No."
Do they say that it is a owners mark and not a runic sign.
Christian symbolism was quite common when designing
these marks. For comparision...
http://www.snevide.com/Elisabeth/bomerke/bomerke.htm
(Was Mats Sefrede from Öja a stone mason?)
http://sydaby.eget.net/swe/bo1.htm
(I wonder what the claim would be if it
was Matts Norrgrann's mark from 1779?)
Also this fragment of a slab is dated to late medieval
(14-1500) because of the shape of the z-rune on it.
www.raa.se/arkeologi/pdf/G_Visby.pdf (page 13)
This last one is the one. What is it about?
That gravestones are difficult to date, but that z-runes
point to the 15th-16th century (14-1500tal).
That was what Jerry already said.
I should have expressed myself more clearly. What does the PDF say
about the inscription?



Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
2006-01-20 22:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Peter Alaca
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by JerryT
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
Thank you, Alan Crozier.
snip
Post by Alan Crozier
Speculation abounds in this chapter. On page 115 there is a
picture of a grave slab (G 344) from Gotland showing an extended
S rune with a horizontal bar making it into a cross. The authors
call this "a cross of Templar design," although of course it
need not be that at all, and then ask "Could this crest be
symbolic of the Templar sword and the chalice?" A perfectly
reasonable answer would be "No."
Do they say that it is a owners mark and not a runic sign.
Christian symbolism was quite common when designing
these marks. For comparision...
http://www.snevide.com/Elisabeth/bomerke/bomerke.htm
(Was Mats Sefrede from Öja a stone mason?)
http://sydaby.eget.net/swe/bo1.htm
(I wonder what the claim would be if it
was Matts Norrgrann's mark from 1779?)
Also this fragment of a slab is dated to late medieval
(14-1500) because of the shape of the z-rune on it.
www.raa.se/arkeologi/pdf/G_Visby.pdf (page 13)
This last one is the one. What is it about?
That gravestones are difficult to date, but that z-runes
point to the 15th-16th century (14-1500tal).
That was what Jerry already said.
I should have expressed myself more clearly. What does the PDF say
about the inscription?
Problem is that I can't copy the text readable to put
Systran to work. Therefore I cannot give you a reliable
impression of the text.
But others can.
--
p.a.
Erik Hammerstad
2006-01-20 23:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Alaca
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Peter Alaca
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by JerryT
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
Thank you, Alan Crozier.
snip
Post by Alan Crozier
Speculation abounds in this chapter. On page 115 there is a
picture of a grave slab (G 344) from Gotland showing an extended
S rune with a horizontal bar making it into a cross. The authors
call this "a cross of Templar design," although of course it
need not be that at all, and then ask "Could this crest be
symbolic of the Templar sword and the chalice?" A perfectly
reasonable answer would be "No."
Do they say that it is a owners mark and not a runic sign.
Christian symbolism was quite common when designing
these marks. For comparision...
http://www.snevide.com/Elisabeth/bomerke/bomerke.htm
(Was Mats Sefrede from Öja a stone mason?)
http://sydaby.eget.net/swe/bo1.htm
(I wonder what the claim would be if it
was Matts Norrgrann's mark from 1779?)
Also this fragment of a slab is dated to late medieval
(14-1500) because of the shape of the z-rune on it.
www.raa.se/arkeologi/pdf/G_Visby.pdf (page 13)
This last one is the one. What is it about?
That gravestones are difficult to date, but that z-runes
point to the 15th-16th century (14-1500tal).
That was what Jerry already said.
I should have expressed myself more clearly. What does the PDF say
about the inscription?
Problem is that I can't copy the text readable to put
Systran to work. Therefore I cannot give you a reliable
impression of the text.
But others can.
Its basically a detailed description of the state of the
inscription, not worth translating IMO. But it does say that the
symbol in the middle is an "owner's" mark, i.e. its not a rune,
and it gives the date (see above).
JerryT
2006-01-20 23:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Erik Hammerstad
Post by Peter Alaca
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by Peter Alaca
Post by Eric Stevens
Post by JerryT
Post by Alan Crozier
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
Thank you, Alan Crozier.
snip
Post by Alan Crozier
Speculation abounds in this chapter. On page 115 there is a
picture of a grave slab (G 344) from Gotland showing an extended
S rune with a horizontal bar making it into a cross. The authors
call this "a cross of Templar design," although of course it
need not be that at all, and then ask "Could this crest be
symbolic of the Templar sword and the chalice?" A perfectly
reasonable answer would be "No."
Do they say that it is a owners mark and not a runic sign.
Christian symbolism was quite common when designing
these marks. For comparision...
http://www.snevide.com/Elisabeth/bomerke/bomerke.htm
(Was Mats Sefrede from Öja a stone mason?)
http://sydaby.eget.net/swe/bo1.htm
(I wonder what the claim would be if it
was Matts Norrgrann's mark from 1779?)
Also this fragment of a slab is dated to late medieval
(14-1500) because of the shape of the z-rune on it.
www.raa.se/arkeologi/pdf/G_Visby.pdf (page 13)
This last one is the one. What is it about?
That gravestones are difficult to date, but that z-runes
point to the 15th-16th century (14-1500tal).
That was what Jerry already said.
I should have expressed myself more clearly. What does the PDF say
about the inscription?
Problem is that I can't copy the text readable to put
Systran to work. Therefore I cannot give you a reliable
impression of the text.
But others can.
Its basically a detailed description of the state of the
inscription, not worth translating IMO.
:-))))

From http://www.raa.se/arkeologi/pdf/G_Visby.pdf (page 13)

344. Saint Per's church ruin

Litterature: E. Floderus, letter to RAÄ 8.11.1933 (ATA)

Reproductions: E. Floderus(?), photo 1933 (ATA)

During archaeological investigations of Saint (S:t) Per's church ruin
1932 Erik Floderius discovered traces of a runic inscription on
grave slab fragment in tha angle betwen S:t Per's northern wall and S:t Hans
western wall. Just below and to the right of the main portal (the big
staircase) in
the southwest corner. The fragment, wich now is below the surface of
the earth, was uncovered and examined in 1984. It was uncovered again
and photographed in 1996.

The fragment lies 22 cm north of the south longhouse wall and 50 cm east
of the staircase in the south longhouse portal. The material is lime stone.
The lenght is
101 cm, width at the top is 88 cm and at the bottom 83 cm. The height of the
runes
are 6,5 - 7 cm. The inscribed surface is worn by stepping on it. The
inscription is
in the upper right corner. The runes at the short side is within lines
(framelines?),
but not those on the long side. At the center of the inscribed surface is an
owners mark (Merchants mark?), 25 cm in height.

The inscription:

...---:-ft--nz bzrg:-...
5 10 15


(Image)

G344. Photo: Bengt A. Lundberg 1996.


To the reading: Remaining from rune 1 is about 1 cm of the upper part of
the staff;
from rune 2 about 1 cm of the lower part of the staff. Rune 3 is has about
3 cm
of the upper part of the staff left. After that a separator made of two
dots. From
rune 4 about 2,5 cm of the staff remains. Rune 5 _f_ is wery shallow but
certain,
the lower part of the upper twig is worn away. Rune 6 _t_ is certain , the
twig on
one side only. Rune 7 is a vertical staff only, without traces of any twigs.

In rune 8 about 7 cm (*) of the top has wheathered away. Maybe runes 7 and 8
togheter
has ben an u-rune. Rune 9 _n_ is shallow but certain,a single sided twig.
Rune 10 _z_ is a 4 cm long staff starting from the outher frame line and
ending with a dot. No further traces of carving before the edge.

(* I do suspect an error here, maybe 0,7 cm. JT)

(page 14)

In rune 11 _b_ is the base missing because of wear. Rune 12 _z_ is a 3 cm
long
staff begining at the upper edge,finished with a 2 cm wide oval ring; no
certain
traces of inscription in the partly weathered area belowe the ring. Rune 13
_r_ is
shallow but certain, the shape is closed. Rune 14 _g_ is certain, clearly
stung
with a dot. Then two dots as a separator. Rune 15 is a staff, 7 cm high.
After that
no certain traces of runes.

Unfortunately the remains of the inscription is so damaged that any
interpretation
is impossible. The slab is hard to date, but the shape of the z-rune speaks
for a
late medieval date, most likely around 1400-1500.
Post by Erik Hammerstad
But it does say that the
symbol in the middle is an "owner's" mark, i.e. its not a rune,
A quote from http://www.lub.lu.se/luft/diss/the_64/the_64.pdf

*********
The pioneering academic research on Merchant Marks (also known as identity
marks, personal marks, ownership marks, identification marks, Hausmarken,
Hofmarken, Marques de Propriété, bomärken) was done by professor Carl Gustav
Homeyer (1870). Since 1870 there has been an ongoing debate among scholars
whether Merchant Marks are simply formed by chance and coincidence, as
stated by Rehnberg (1938, 1951), Scheffer (1957) and Nahlén (1992) or
whether they are variations of Christian symbols, especially the cross, as
stated by Sisson (1929) and Stevenson (1954). Other scholars like Dallaway
(1793), Ewing (1852), Rylands (1911), Hudd (1911), Davies (1935), Ruppel
(1939), Kuhlicke (1952), Lindström (1964), Girling (1964a), Tønnesen (1968)
and Guler (1992) are uncertain of any symbolic meaning of Merchant Marks,
but suggest one or several interpretations of various examples. By
collecting a reference material of 27,595 examples of Merchant Marks from
Sweden, Åland in Finland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland and Latvia
this doctoral thesis has by statistical evaluation proved that these marks
are by no means coincidental, but are variations of about 80 types, being
identified as mediaeval Christian symbols. The most common symbol is the
cross and variations of the cross, making up more than half of the reference
material. Other common symbols are Alpha and Omega, monograms of the names
Jesus, Christ and Mary, using Greek, Latin and even runic letters
(Christogram, Chi-Rho monogram, Labarum cross). Not uncommon are Pentagram,
symbols of the Trinity, and attributes of Christ and Mary. Some are
attributes of saints like Peter, Olav, Hallvard, Laurentius, Brigitte,
Gertrud and the archangel Michael. The origin of the use of Merchant Marks
is traced back to the baptismal liturgy of the early church. Theodore,
bishop of Mopsuestia, Syria, (AD 392-428) interprets the cross signed on the
forehead of those being baptised as a property mark of Christ, to be
compared with property marks on livestock or soldiers denoting their Lord:

The sign, with which you are now denoted, is the mark by which you are
distinguished as a lamb of Christ, as a soldier of the King of heaven. For
when a lamb is purchased it is given a mark to tell what master it belongs
to . The soldier who is chosen for military service . first gets a mark on
his hand to tell what king he is going to serve from then on. When the
priest has accomplished these acts to you, through the sign with which he
has denoted your forehead . he has from that moment separated you from other
men and thereby decided that you are a soldier under him who is truly king,
and a citizen of the heavenly City.


Lilliebjörn (1933) in his doctoral thesis shows that in Roman time slaves,
prisoners of war and soldiers were marked on their forehead (and hand) by
213
burning or tattooing with the mark of their owner or Emperor. This custom
was used also in the mystery cults, to denote membership in a cult and being
a servant of a certain god. Even some Christians tattooed a cross on their
forehead. The earliest examples of the kind of Merchant Marks found in the
reference material are from Egyptian papyri ca AD 380, with the first
example in AD 378. Scribes before ca AD 380 never used to add a figure of
any kind to their signatures. The new practice was established fast, and
almost without exception a cross, or a variation of a cross-related device
like the Labarum Cross, was added to the signature of the scribe. The new
practice coincides with the inauguration of the East Roman Emperor
Theodosius the Great (AD 378-395), who legislated Christianity as the only
lawful religion in the empire. Whether he actually legally codified the use
of the cross for signing documents is uncertain, but in AD 534 the East
Roman Emperor Justinian the Great (AD 527-565) in his Corpus Juris Civilis
codified this practice. The new practice of combining a cross, or a
cross-related device, to one.s signature soon developed into a
differentiation of marks for the practical cause of identification.
Seemingly the bishops were pioneers in varying the cross sign as their
individual mark.

The symbolic meaning of the Merchant Marks seems to have been known until
about AD 1500, but was forgotten during the Reformation era and the 16th
Century. The last trace of a symbolic understanding of these figures is in a
prayer of the English heraldic expert Randle Holm in AD 1688: .may their
Marks neuer faile them..
**************

An owners mark on a grave slab from a christian burial on Gotland
resembling a symbol used by the christian Templars. That is not
evidence of Gotlandish Templars or runecarvers with a secret messages.

JerryT
Post by Erik Hammerstad
and it gives the date (see above).
Warren B. Hapke
2006-01-19 23:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In soc.history.medieval Alan Crozier <***@telia.com> wrote:
: <please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>

Done.

: Some other claims here seem far-fetched. A portrait of St.
: Bernard, founder of the Cistercians and sponsor of the Templars,
: is reproduced because the authors read the folds in his sleeve

This is perhaps OT for your review, but St. Bernard was NOT the
founder of the Cistercians, and if the book identified him as such
it's a fairly egregious error. (See
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03780c.htm for information on the founding
of the order.) Because Bernard of Clairvaux is the most prominent early
Cistercian, people with only a passing familiarity with church history
sometimes think of him as the founder of the order, but he wasn't.

If your summary of the book's chapter on the Templars/Cistercians is
accurate, I look forward to the Speculum review.

Warren B. Hapke
***@prairienet.org
prd
2006-01-19 23:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warren B. Hapke
: <please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Done.
: Some other claims here seem far-fetched. A portrait of St.
: Bernard, founder of the Cistercians and sponsor of the
: Templars, is reproduced because the authors read the folds in
: his sleeve
This is perhaps OT for your review, but St. Bernard was NOT the
founder of the Cistercians, and if the book identified him as
such it's a fairly egregious error. (See
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03780c.htm for information on
the founding of the order.) Because Bernard of Clairvaux is the
most prominent early Cistercian, people with only a passing
familiarity with church history sometimes think of him as the
founder of the order, but he wasn't.
If your summary of the book's chapter on the
Templars/Cistercians is accurate, I look forward to the Speculum
review.
From what Alan wrote there appears to be alot in
the speculative part of the book that was not thoroughly researched.
All the more reason we shouldn't spend our money on such worthless
speculation.
Eric Stevens
2006-01-20 03:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by prd
Post by Warren B. Hapke
: <please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Done.
: Some other claims here seem far-fetched. A portrait of St.
: Bernard, founder of the Cistercians and sponsor of the
: Templars, is reproduced because the authors read the folds in
: his sleeve
This is perhaps OT for your review, but St. Bernard was NOT the
founder of the Cistercians, and if the book identified him as
such it's a fairly egregious error. (See
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03780c.htm for information on
the founding of the order.) Because Bernard of Clairvaux is the
most prominent early Cistercian, people with only a passing
familiarity with church history sometimes think of him as the
founder of the order, but he wasn't.
If your summary of the book's chapter on the
Templars/Cistercians is accurate, I look forward to the Speculum
review.
From what Alan wrote there appears to be alot in
the speculative part of the book that was not thoroughly researched.
All the more reason we shouldn't spend our money on such worthless
speculation.
I suggest that you don't buy that part of the book.



Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
2006-01-20 03:06:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:15:33 +0000 (UTC), "Warren B. Hapke"
Post by Warren B. Hapke
: <please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Done.
: Some other claims here seem far-fetched. A portrait of St.
: Bernard, founder of the Cistercians and sponsor of the Templars,
: is reproduced because the authors read the folds in his sleeve
This is perhaps OT for your review, but St. Bernard was NOT the
founder of the Cistercians, and if the book identified him as such
it's a fairly egregious error. (See
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03780c.htm for information on the founding
of the order.) Because Bernard of Clairvaux is the most prominent early
Cistercian, people with only a passing familiarity with church history
sometimes think of him as the founder of the order, but he wasn't.
No, they did not make that mistake. The book says (p 103):

"Unravelling the Kensington Rune Stone Mystery must start with St.
Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), who was the driving force in the
expansion of both the Cistercians and the Knights Templar. The
organisations worked hand-in-glove, beginning in 1128, and would
exert a heavy influence on Gotland from the 12th century through
the end of the Middle Ages. Bernard joined the first Cistercian
monastery in Burgundy, France when he was in his early twenties.
..."
Post by Warren B. Hapke
If your summary of the book's chapter on the Templars/Cistercians is
accurate, I look forward to the Speculum review.
Warren B. Hapke
Eric Stevens
Alan Crozier
2006-01-20 22:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Warren B. Hapke
: <please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Done.
: Some other claims here seem far-fetched. A portrait of St.
: Bernard, founder of the Cistercians and sponsor of the
Templars,
Post by Warren B. Hapke
: is reproduced because the authors read the folds in his
sleeve
Post by Warren B. Hapke
This is perhaps OT for your review, but St. Bernard was NOT
the
Post by Warren B. Hapke
founder of the Cistercians, and if the book identified him as
such
Post by Warren B. Hapke
it's a fairly egregious error. (See
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03780c.htm for information on
the founding
Post by Warren B. Hapke
of the order.) Because Bernard of Clairvaux is the most
prominent early
Post by Warren B. Hapke
Cistercian, people with only a passing familiarity with church
history
Post by Warren B. Hapke
sometimes think of him as the founder of the order, but he
wasn't.

Sorry, that was MY carelessness. The book says that he was "the
driving force behind the rapid expansion of Cistercians". I
conflated that with his role in the foundation of the Templars,
writing their rule (or "charter" as the book says). Apologies.

Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Loading...