Sunday, January 4, 2015

Who Carved the Waubansee Stone?


The Committee Films crew with guest Scott Mastores (second from left) after wrapping the final shoot.




One of four base relief carvings on towers made of Indiana Limestone on the Michigan Avenue Bridge, over the Chicago River, has an interesting five-pointed star on a Native American shield.  Along with other interesting symbols within the carvings, does it reflect the ideological leanings of the artist, Henry Hering, or perhaps of the ones who commissioned them? 

Scott, field producer, Paula Engelking (left side) and guest, Dr. Scott Mastores, with his daughter Katie, pose with the Waubansee Stone at a secret location outside of Chicago. 


A closer view of the face carved on the Waubansee Stone shows the hole in the mouth where water was designed to flow from the bowl on top.

A piece of glacial field stone from the Ohman farm in Kensington, Minnesota, where the Kensington Rune Stone was discovered in 1898, is mortared into the outside wall of the Chicago Tribune Building in downtown Chicago.

Just like the Rock Wall in Texas, when we began shooting this episode I was a little surprised I had never before heard of the Waubansee Stone.  In fact, there is sparse information about it on the Internet or in books.  It's one of those artifacts that slipped through the cracks of history and its origin truly is a mystery.  As we pursued the investigation, it quickly became clear to me this was not the creation of a bored soldier at Fort Dearborn 200 years ago, who carved the face on this stone that at one time was originally eight feet long.  I also read where the local native tribes reported the stone was upright with one end three feet in the ground like a megalithic standing stone.  It might have been erected to mark the important, and very ancient, portage route to the Mississippi River from Lake Michigan.  It seems perfectly logical to speculate the standing stone could date back thousands of years as an important marker for the ancient Copper Culture, both from Europe and for indigenous people to have used this portage to transport their valuable cargo.

It's difficult for people to imagine these days, but the landscape of the Great Lakes region in the post-glacial period two to five millennia ago looked much different than it does today.  In fact, at one point of what is now the Chicago River that flows into Lake Michigan, the river likely flowed directly out of the lake to the Mississippi.  As the continental ice sheets melted back, lake levels were constantly changing.  Isostatic rebound of the earth's crust from the removal of the immense weight of the ice also created dramatic changes in lake levels and the flow of rivers and streams over the past five thousand years.  Remember, because of differences in water levels in the past, there almost certainly were easier travel routes for larger vessels between the individual Great Lakes than they would be now.  Excluding of course, modern canals and locks.

In any case, the most likely scenario for me is the Phoenicians, and/or whichever ancient cultures in the America's that were involved in the early mining of copper in the Lake Superior region.  I'm certainly open to other possibilities, such as the Mayans, Aztecs, or some other early Native American group as the carvers of the mysterious face, but I'm not at all receptive to the notion that a soldier with the advanced skills, appropriate tools, and time on his hands at Fort Dearborn had anything to do with it.  Therefore, this makes the Waubansee Stone one the most historically important and valuable  artifacts in North America.  In my opinion, it should be front page news and I'm hopeful that it will soon be prominently displayed for the American public to see and ponder.

197 comments:

  1. This was a very interesting episode. I had come across this stone a few years ago while attempting to better understand some of our other American oddities. I have some new opinions about it after seeing your recent show, Scott, but I wish I knew just a bit more about the stone, such as if the weathering of the face appeared to be about the same as the carved basin and the two stoneholes or not—the two holes apparently not associated with turning it into a drinking fountain!

    I would like to lessen in my mind the possibility that the two stoneholes not associated with the drinking fountain changes may have been hand chiseled and used as “grab spots” for moving the stone. An analysis of those two stoneholes should tell us if they appear to have been made about the time they moved the stone, or much earlier. But, from what you said on the show, and from finding this old 2002 article about the stone, http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/the-riddle-of-the-rock/Content?oid=907402 and seeing what stonehole enthusiast Marion Dahn said about the two stoneholes years ago, I take it that these two stoneholes are, in fact, just like the aged, triangular-shaped stoneholes we find up here in MN and SD.

    I suppose I should digress here long enough to mention that a skeptic’s blog (Jason Colavito’s) is currently addressing this very American Earth episode, and this “debunker” has once again openly disregarded these medieval stoneholes as being the multiple evidences of Scandinavian forgetfulness, which I think is extremely unfair. I myself have had countless blog discussions with this “Columbus-loving, stonehole-and-waterway-hating ” skeptic about this, so I’m especially saddened that he still refers to the bogus findings of “academic Tom Trow” as legitimate. I believe Trow's conclusions about stoneholes years ago has hindered their study, by dismissing them as readily as Colavito continues to want to do, as we can see by the link the blog host provided in his blog heading.

    Anyway, Scott, I think the Waubansee Stone represents two distinct periods of time. The second period of time would be the carving of the Chief’s face about two hundred years ago, and the first period of time represents the same period of time as the dished-out stone “altar” surrounded by stonehole rocks, shown in your Hooked X book on page 120. Without the Chief’s face, the rock becomes (and was, I believe) a monk’s altar, with accompanying stoneholes, no different in purpose than the “altar” found in Wilmot, SD, or of the altar found near Sauk Lake, MN, for that matter: all altars, and all of medieval origination, I believe. I’m talking about altars for a Christian ritualistic purpose, such as cleansing, and not sacrificial altars for killing babies…quite a difference. (Think Christian altars, stoneholes, and waterways, and attribute the face to the Chief…notice how images of the Chief show a headband; now notice this is where the stone’s image begins.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gunn,

    Skeptic's on that website look for whatever they can for the sake of taking an opposing viewpoint. Keep in mind that it can be helpful to consider skeptical viewpoints as long as they have merit. I know Tom Trow pretty well and have discussed both his, and my work on the stone holes in some depth. To his credit, Tom has compiled first-hand testimony from farmer's who said they cut holes for blasting glacial boulders to clear land. However, there are all kinds of problems with that explanation for the numerous boulders with stone holes at the Ohman farm and elsewhere.

    First, presumably, if the Ohman's spent all that time cutting the stone holes with a hammer and chisel to blast them apart, why didn't they blast them? Second, the stone holes are too small for dynamite of that era to fit inside the slightly less than one-inch diameter holes. Third, cutting a hole in a boulder isn't necessary since the procedure for blasting was to pack the stick of dynamite in clay on the surface which apparently initiates the energy of the blast into the rock.

    Tom cannot explain why the stone holes at the Ohman Farm triangulate at the KRS discovery location, he simply rejects it. It appears that Tom's thesis that might explain some of the stone holes, cannot explain the vast majority of them at the Ohman Farm in proximity of the KRS site. The skeptic's simply jump on Tom's work to try and bolster their firmly entrenched opinion the KRS is a hoax.

    The weathering work I was able to do on the Waubansee Stone was limited due to the fact the entire surface of the Waubansee Stone was covered in black soot from the Chicago Fire. However, what I could see was the weathering of both the carved face, the bowl, and the stone holes appeared to be similar and consistent with great age. I also had the surfaces of the modern holes cut to facilitate the pipes for the drinking fountain, to use for comparison purposes and they were fresh and essentially un-weathered.

    The face carved on the stone looks nothing like Chief Waubansee and there's no way a carving would be made of proud Native American chief with his eyes closed and pursed lips. It's an insulting pose and I don't buy that for a second.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To break up large rocks prior to nitroglycerine wasn't it pretty common to just drill a hole, pack it full of black powder and set it off with a fuse?

      Delete
    2. These stone holes are not mechanically drilled and are too small for dynamite. I'm sure that was done in many cases, but not with these specific rounded triangular holes.

      Delete
    3. They wouldn't have to be mechanically drilled though. Nor was sticks of dynamite always used. Triangular holes were often chiseled using a flat bit mason's chisel and simply packed in with black powder. The points of the triangle were ostensibly to help direct the force of the blast.

      Delete
    4. As I wrote to Gunn above; if they went to all that work to chisel the holes, why didn't they blast them?

      Delete
    5. Why are projects ever abandoned? Family emergency? Plans for the land change? Black powder use deemed too dangerous? Other projects (such as clearing trees) takes precedent? Who really knows.

      Delete
    6. I highly doubt the Ohman's cut over a dozen holes in different boulders before determining dynamite was too dangerous. There is also evidence at least four of the smaller boulders with stone holes were moved into the ditch on the edge of the field. Why pound holes in boulders for blasting you could, and did simply move?

      Maybe the simplest reason is they are much older and have nothing to do with blasting.

      Delete
    7. I'm not so sure that a farmer abandoning a project is not a simpler reason than a group of templars coming to the US nearly fifty years after being disbanded, creating a land claim that they couldn't know anyone would see, and then carving a bunch of random holes as a marker to triangulate where the runestone was.

      Delete
    8. After doing some digging about the triangle shaped holes I found the following:

      Source: Peter Stanier, South West Granite: A History of the Granite Industry in Cornwall and Devon. St Austell, Cornwall: Cornish Hillside Publications, 1999.

      "The hand borer was an iron rod with a steel, chisel-shaped cutting edge, held by one man who gave it a half turn in the hole between blows given by two men wielding sledge-hammers. After 20 minutes, they would change places. …

      To insure a round blast-hole, a steel collar was placed just behind the cutting edge at the bottom of the borer. Left alone, a borer made a triangular-shaped hole, which some Cornish quarrymen were said to have preferred. Despite twisting of the triangle, experienced men could judge the position of any of its faces at the bottom of the hole. The sides of the hole often determined the line of cracks made by the blast, but a problem arose of it was uncertain where the line of least resistance lay. [pp. 69-70]"


      Halbert Powers Gillette, Rock Excavation: Methods and Cost. New York, NY: M. C. Clark, 1904.


      Hammer Drilling. – The common weight of hammer for one-hand drilling is 4 ½ lbs; for two-hand or three-hand drilling 10 lbs. The striking face must be flat or slightly rounding, and smaller than the stock of the hammer. The hole is started on a solid and squared surface, with a short drill, for the longer the drill the less effective the blow. Light blows are struck at first. The bit is turned one-eighth of a revolution after each blow to insure keeping the hole truly circular. But in spite of this precaution most hand-drilled holes are three-cornered, or “rifled.” This rifling is not very objectionable in ordinary excavation work, but in quarrying square blocks for masonry it is decidedly objectionable because the rock tends to split in the directions of the three angles of the drill hole upon blasting. How to prevent this rifling will be shown in a subsequent paragraph. [pp.17]


      It seems that the triangle shapes may be more of an indication that they are hand made and not mechanical.

      Delete
    9. It's plainly obvious you reject the authenticity of the rune stone (two words BTW), so you won't see anything except that which supports your view. That's hardly scientific, but it is your choice.

      We'll have to just disagree on the intended purpose of the stone holes at the Ohman Farm.

      Delete
    10. That the rounded triangular stone holes were hand man verses mechanically drilled has been my position all along.

      Delete
    11. It sounded like one of your objections to the holes being used as blasting holes was because they were not mechanically made. The sources I gave showed that hand made holes were indeed chiseled for blasting. As a matter of fact, one of the repeated points was that holes hand chiseled for blasting ended up being triangular in shape.

      Delete
    12. That was not one of the points I was trying to make; sorry for the misunderstanding. The point is the rounded triangular man made stone holes could be centuries older than the Ohman's time.

      Delete
    13. Have you heard of the new discovery found underwater west of Milwaukee Wisconsin at bottom of a lake, a pyramid said to be thousands years old, supposedly scubadivers found evidence of it dating back before the mounds found in Midwest, would love for you to investigate.

      Delete
    14. Brandon,

      I don't think I've heard of this discovery? Can you give me some details?

      Delete
  3. Well, Scott, what I was thinking is that there seems to be quite a bit of background information suggesting that it was carved by a soldier with time on his hands, and it's quite possible that because the carver wasn't that good, the image didn't turn out to look much like the Chief. That happened to me in Italy when I commissioned a cheap portrait of myself in Venice one day and it turned out to be only a cheap and appalling caricature of my actual, proud self...which I'll admit I did find a bit insulting. (But at least my eyes were open and my lips weren't pursed.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'd like to explain my reasoning for thinking this is a medieval Christian altar, if you don't mind indulging me.

    I've seen medieval Scandinavian petrogylphs here in MN and SD, and I've seen them accompanied by stoneholes. I've also seen what can be perceived of as being altar rocks, which are either marked with stoneholes or else surrounded by stonehole rocks. But I've never seen a petroglyph on a stonehole rock. The Waubansee Stone doesn't fit the pattern I see.

    Specifically, what are the two medieval stoneholes doing on it? Could the face be a medieval petroglyph? I only doubt it because I've never seen the combination of stoneholes and an image on the same rock before...for whatever reason. But without the face, the stone could easily be another possible medieval altar with accompanying stoneholes, such as up here in MN and SD. I agree with your analysis of how the Waubansee Stone fits into the region, waterway-wise.

    But Scott, I see a direct medieval influence on this rock in the way of the two stoneholes that can't be ignored or underestimated, and I think both you and Dahm saw this, too. The stoneholes could have been added in medieval times, way after the face was carved, but I personally doubt it. I think we're gladly looking at another medieval Scandinavian Christian altar, with accompanying stoneholes...but with a later, crude face image added, and the Chief is confusing things.

    I don't mind that we respectfully disagree on these points. It's all speculation at this point, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is speculation and we did discuss the possible chronology of the erection of the monolith, the carving of the face and basin, and the stone holes. This is the order I believe they were made and agree the stone holes could be a medieval addition.

    We don't have the answers now, but not so distant future technology might.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The carved face sure bares a striking resemblance to Kublai Khan.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://historydetroit.com/chronology/index.php?date3=1701 03-01-1670

    History of Detroit, MI--Timeline to 1701

    Fathers Dollier and Galinee enter Detroit River after wintering in present day Port Dover, Ontario. They are said to have found a rock formation shaped like a human figure near the mouth of the Rouge River. It had been decorated and made an idol by the Native Americans. The priests were so offended, they destroyed the landmark with their hatchets and dumped the pieces out in the river before continuing on to Sault Ste. Marie, Montreal and Quebec.

    This might be related to Waubansee Stone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pasadena,

      It sure could be, but at this point it'd be impossible to figure out with the pieces. Gotta' love those Jesuits...

      Delete
    2. http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/11753194


      The Mission of the Guardian Angel was a 17th century Jesuit mission in the vicinity of what is now Chicago, Illinois. It was established in 1696 by Father François Pinet, a French Jesuit priest. The mission was abandoned by 1700; its exact location remains unknown.

      Delete
    3. Pasadena,

      This is good info; thanks for posting.

      Delete
  8. Scott,

    Good show, best of the season. The one thing I would recommend as you tied this sculpture with the copper mining in upper Michigan would be to do a show that addresses the questions around if pre columbian trans atlantic journey's were possible given the technology and navigation available. Perhaps get some geologists like yourself, oceanographers, and marine engineers to answer if say could the Phoenicians have made it to say the gulf of mexico. Could large sailing ships make it up the Mississippi or into Lake Ontario..3,000 years ago, 2000 years ago and even 700 years ago. I've seen some simulations that suggest a sailing vessel of say Roman merchant type could simply not make it across the Atlantic and around Florida and into the Gulf of Mexico. The Vikings made it but they rarely sailed outside of land for a few days (their journey to New Foundland skirted Greenland up to the Davis strait and only when they could see the high arctic islands like I think Baffin did they cross).

    Love the show...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's actually a good idea. Don't know if the network would go for that, but we can suggest it. Personally, I'm certain they had the vessel technology to sail as far as they wanted. Many have replicated these long distant voyages and were successful, but nothing wrong with doing it again.

      Delete
  9. The carving looks like it has hair on the head and face, though severely worn off through time. That would indicate that it wasn't a carving of a Native American.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott Mastores and I thought it looked like it had a mustache and chin beard. However, the weathering and the carving itself made it hard to tell for sure.

      I don't believe for a second it's a likeness of a Native American nor do I think one carved it.

      Delete
    2. Could this be related to the Wabansee stone...the native man who found it says something about a deity that creates the wind thus the lips appear to be blowing and eyes shut...both seem very simular??

      http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=639860&playlistId=1.2432354&binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&binPageNum=1

      Delete
    3. I watched the video and that face from a distance sure looks manmade. However, the only way to know for sure is to get up on and look closely. It's pretty remote and hard to get to so I'll reserve final judgment until I see more info or see it myself!

      Delete
  10. I knew of the Waubansee Stone for a few years, but nothing more than that it was carved by a soldier a few hundred years ago. After watching your show, Scott, I have to admit I seriously doubt a bored soldier carved it. There is much more history there yet to be learned, and I must say that when compared to other facial sculptures from history, the Waubansee Stone more closely reflects cultural ties to the Phoenicians. Simply fascinating.

    I too am a little familiar with Jason's webpage, and agree most people there seem to be quick to throw something out and do not look at new findings with an open mind. They seem all to eager to toss out a piece of new information that comes along. Historical researchers are taught to find proof, find written documentation that corroborates with physical findings, and when they do that is the foundation for the history books. But there is so much unknown history out there that is unable to find backing within dusty journals and letters...evidence is needed to be collected, conclusions with enough evidence can become working theories, and eventually minds can be persuaded to look at discredited things in a new light.

    Keep up and good work, it is interesting work.
    And just because Henry Sinclair didn't write a note to the castle in the county next over from his to water his plants and feed his dogs for half a dozen years doesn't mean he didn't head east on a secret journey of discovery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't spend time on Jason's website because although he is an intelligent guy, the discourse over there is overly negative and unproductive. It'd be great if he would be a little more open-minded as he could probably offer some helpful input.

      As I've said many times; in legends and myths there is always some truth. Sometimes a lot of truth. If Henry Sinclair did make the voyage he is reputed to have made, it would have been done in absolute secrecy.

      Delete
  11. Just saw the show, it was really, really good. I had never heard of this artifact. I would tend to doubt that a solder just decided to carve it. It would be likely that the same soldier would have been a sculptor and there would have been other carvings made by him, perhaps some larger and others smaller. If there were not other similar artifacts found in the same general vicinity it would point to someone else. Native Americans generally didn't do such sculpture in stone. There were exceptions, such as the Etowan statues and various effigies, and, of course, some wooden effigies carved, but I don't know of anything else like it in the Native American world. I have seen some similar things in the British Museum--but I didn't really pay attention to them to the extent that I could say they were really all that similar. I have long thought that the Phoenicians certainly visited the Americas. There wouldn't be (much of) a trace of them in mitochondrial DNA because the ships seldom carried women. But mtDNA haplogroup X remains a possibility. Good job on a very intriguing show.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A very interesting episode and one that really seemed to raise a lot of important questions. Personally I think the face has a more Scandinavian look, but it is a fascinating artifact. As to our skeptical friend across the blogosphere I just read this terrifying comment from one of his acolytes:

    "Scratch the surface of these odd self proclaimed historians and Nazism is almost always just beneath the surface.

    Anyone have insight on just why that's the case?"

    So anyone who questions the traditional view of history is a Nazi now? These fanatical espousers of orthodoxy more closely resemble the Spanish Inquisition burning heretics with each passing day. I wonder if they ever stop to see the irony in comments such as these?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm pretty sure that's a reference to Frank Joseph, the first person to propose the Waubansee stone was Phoenician

      Delete
    2. Hasn't Frank Joseph's theories, especially his theory on the Waubansee Stone being Phoenician, been debunked?

      Delete
    3. Ed,

      Debunkers are not legitimate researchers as they are simply contrarians arguing opposing viewpoints. No one has conclusively proven anything regarding the Waubansee Stone. Frank Joseph has proposed an interesting idea about the Waubasee Stone that should be vetted like anyone else's.

      Debunker's try to discredit Mr. Joseph for his checkered past which is unfortunate, but doesn't make his theories or hypotheses any less credible. They should be examined on the basis of their merit and factual support, not his personal failings.

      Delete
    4. > Debunkers are not legitimate researchers as they are simply contrarians arguing opposing viewpoints.

      So people opposing you in argument are, ipso facto, declared to be wrong?

      Surely you don't mean to imply that.

      Delete
    5. Terry the Censor,

      The key word in your citation is "legitimate." Opposing views are not legitimate when they refuse to acknowledge or accept established facts which most of the debunkers I've interacted with do. Opposing views without factual support are certainly not right; so what would you call them?

      I welcome opposing commentary, but not without factual support. I also don't appreciate debunkers' arguments that dismiss the factual work I have published or try to attack my credibility when they can't refute the facts.

      Delete
    6. Scott,

      In regards to Frank Joseph, why do you describe his past as being "a checkered past", since it is far worse than that? He is the former leader of the American Nazi Party and is a convicted child molester. That is far more severe than just being "checkered." And if I recall his real name is Frank Collins, and changed his name to Frank Joseph to hide the fact. If this was any other researcher I would respect that you would feel this way, but a person who committed horrible crimes and has a history of lying, in my opinion should be questioned. I hope you understand why I would feel this way, and you seem like a nice guy so I assume you would.

      Delete
    7. John,

      Of course I understand how you feel and I'm certainly not here to defend Frank Joseph's past in any way. His theories about the Waubansee Stone are interesting as I said before, and should be examined on the basis of their merit and factual support.

      I wasn't the one to bring his name up in this thread so I suggest out of respect for everyone's feelings about this person let's move on. Having said that, I still think the Phoenician angle is worth exploring with regard to this artifact.

      Delete
  13. Now you know why I don't spend time on that blog. To be fair, it is true there are people with dark ideas on both sides of the discussion. That's why I recently banned an overly critical and nasty name-caller. I gave him several opportunities to change his tone and he got worse. Criticism is fine because sometimes I deserve it, but there is a limit to the negativity that I will tolerate and that person overstepped it.

    Some of these critics are so zealous in their beliefs that I doubt they see anything other than their own dogma. It's too bad.

    ReplyDelete
  14. And we appreciate you banning that that individual. If one can't be respectful and constructive, take it elsewhere. They don't belong here. Thank you for maintaining a blog spot that allows thought-provoking ideas.
    For what it's worth, the Waubansee stone reminded me of a Chinese carving I saw in a college book many years ago - the pursed lips, and full cheeks, and the hint of chin hair. And this lead me to think of the episode with the Chinese maps. Perhaps unrelated but makes one wonder, or at least me.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The face on this artifact sure is interesting. For years now, apparently, many have thought it depicts a Native American, without much argument. Others see a Phoenician. Still others see a face from the medieval period, a Scandinavian for instance (above comment).

    If possible, I think the rock in question should be cleaned. There must be a method for cleaning off the soot, etc., so that the various carvings can be better assessed. Perhaps a light steam cleaning with plain water? I believe some answers can be attained about this rock once the various possible agings of the carvings can be better assessed. I say this because there is too much confusion about the face to tell us much: the face could represent too many options.

    However, there is evidence on the Waubansee Stone that is quite conclusive in my mind, pointing directly, unwaveringly, to the medieval period. I say this because these aged, triangular-shaped Scandinavian stoneholes have come to represent the medieval period, at least in "fringe" history. (I think you will agree.) So, I think it would be good that people realize that the so-called Waubansee Stone bears an unmistakable medieval imprint upon it. Regardless of what the face means at this point, or when it was carved in relation to the basin and two stoneholes, I think it is very important that the Wabansee Stone be seen as clearly representing the medieval period, based on the two aged stoneholes.

    Scott, you've already shown very well how the stone fits in with the waterway location, so I feel like it's safe to say that the rock (among other possibilities) had to do with medieval Scandinavian waterway marking of one kind or another. I'm just saying that the many questions about the face shouldn't obscure the reality of the two medieval Scandinavian stoneholes. In other words, I think the stone does have some clearly decipherable history, in spite of the many guesses about the face. I wish you could revisit an acceptably cleaned (archaeological standards) Waubansee Stone for another look, but I realize this is wishful thinking.

    See, I think the stone was already unique enough that attention was drawn to it, so that the rock was chosen out to carve the Chief's face in partly for this reason...if a soldier carved it. We could have better speculation and possible answers if the rock could be cleaned and then reassessed. I'm glad you brought this interesting rock to everyone's attention. Before the episode aired, I didn't realize the Waubansee Stone was yet ANOTHER medieval stonehole rock!

    (BTW, it's always nice to be able to discuss stoneholes without making the blog host nervous. I've found that talking about stoneholes and inland waterways, especially together, makes skeptics nervous...too close to "fringe" pre-Columbus truth about Scandinavian inland travel, you see.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Scott,
    I absolutely loved the episode and thought it was one of the best of the season. Only slight criticism - is that I wish you would've talked about the weathering of the stone more on the show (as you did here in the comments).
    Huge fan,
    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  17. First of all, how appalling that anyone (especially persons charged with preserving historical artifacts) would desecrate such a unique item! Truly saddening, but I guesswe should just be thankful that it wasn't destroyed.
    Secondly, am I correct in my recollection that Native Americans of the time of Chief Waubansee would have viewed an image of their likeness in a very negative light? Didn't they have a firmly held believe that an image of their likeness would make them susceptible to evil spirits who might use that image to curse them? Or was this only a belief held by southwestern tribes?
    I do agree this looks like a Caucasian face to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jenn,

      The Museum staff acknowledged the mistakes of the past, but cutting off the bottom half and making it into a drinking fountain would definitely not happen now.

      I've heard that many Native Americans did not want their pictures taken for they believed the camera would steal their soul. I don't think that's a prevailing belief now, but I'm not certain.

      Delete
    2. Most Native Americans will allow you to take photos of them now, but you have to ask for permission. Depending on where you are, why you want the photo, and who the individuals are they might want something in return. They are very cautious about photos taken for commercial purposes and it usually requires a fee. On some reservations it's illegal to take photos without permission or a permit issued by the tribe.

      Delete
    3. I wasn't for sure if that had only ever pertained to photographs or if it was an earlier belief before photographs.
      The more I look at this stone face, the more I think it looks like a wind god blowing.

      Delete
  18. To me it looks as though the face is blowing out something, does anyone else notice that too? all the holes make me wonder if this wasnt used for smoking or burning something, if they are conected holes, maybe it was used for seperating metals from stones or something more usefull than baby sacrifice, it takes 9 months of suffering for one of those things, and a woman to make it, I doubt any woman strong enough to make a trip across the ocean is weak enough to let her baby be sacrificed

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dave,

    We did discuss a lot more about the weathering and other aspects of the carvings and holes at the time, but they had to edit our discussion down as I'm sure you can imagine. We can't get everything in there.

    ReplyDelete
  20. One of the best episodes so far!

    I like to imagine what this thing would've looked like 500 years ago. Just as Eero Saarinen's Gateway Arch here in St. Louis is beautiful and symbolizes the gateway to the West, this imposing, but smaller monument likely served as the gateway to the Mississippi!

    I would love to see Chicago embrace it and perhaps erect a reproduction of it near where it originally sat.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think you need to come out with a special episode or DVD that contains these edited findings, and new evidence......and maybe a few out-takes? Now that would be FUN!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not a bad idea either. We do have an annual in-house blooper video that I doubt Committee Films would make public. However, all three year's editions have been hilarious. Why wouldn't they with me in front of the camera...?

      Delete
    2. You should really consider it!!! That would be so cool.

      Delete
  22. Tung,

    I think a reproduction near the original location is a great idea; it could enhance the historical interest of the city and be a neat attraction for people to see.

    That's a really good idea!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hey Scott. You say you're looking for proof to set the record and history right on the discovery of America? Believe it or not, the boys over on Oak Island may have found your definitive answer and they don't even know it!
    Watching tonight's episode "Trail of the templars" the boys are in Scotland checking out a castle. And a church. In that church, they find two interesting items not known to Scotland. Corn, and a flower.
    What was it you were once told? "Follow the corn?"
    The Rosalyn chapel in Scotland was built 50 years before Columbus set sail by Mr. Sinclair.
    In that chapel are carvings of kernels of corn? And a trillion (SP??) flower?
    Neither of which are native to Scotland let alone Europe.
    You should get in touch with researcher Kathleen MCGowan who can give you more details.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I've been to Rosslyn Chapel a few times and am well aware of the corn/maize at Rosslyn; there's a picture of these carvings I took in my Hooked X book. You might want to check out my books, "The Hooked X" and the "Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers."

    Sorry for the shameless plug for my books, but I think if you check them out you'll see I'm very up on the Templar's, Oak Island, and few other related research items.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Kathleen McGowan is a regular commentator on Ancient Aliens and she believes that she is a direct descendant of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. She isn't a "researcher", she's a kook.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I have never met Kathleen so I have no opinion about her. She's seems like a nice enough person during her appearances on the two Oak Island episodes that I watched, but I know nothing else about her.

    I don't think it's fair to say she's not a legitimate researcher simply because she believes she is descended from J & M; she might very well be. Just as it's also possible there could be thousands of other people who are. Neither you or I know the answer to that.

    ReplyDelete
  27. She was a self-proclaimed "little league mom" living in California with her husband and 3 children as a respected journalist and tv writer. She must have gone off the rails, because she left her family to follow a "vision" in France, and ended up marrying the ancient alien writer Philip Coppens. I feel bad for her because she is likely mentally ill, but she's hardly a reliable source of information.

    ReplyDelete
  28. My son just saw a clip of your next episode and he yelled out "Scott Wooolter, my favorite show!"

    ReplyDelete
  29. You tell your son he's my favorite fan of the show and I appreciate his suppooort!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hey wait a minute. He only became a fan after I turned him on to your show. ;-)
    I gave him the message and he thought it was "AWESOME!". Thanks for making his day.

    ReplyDelete
  31. So Scott.....will there be a season 4????

    ReplyDelete
  32. We're working on trying to get it!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Why don't you have more episodes involving underwater archeaology/discoveries ?

    ReplyDelete
  34. When your AU series ends you should pitch a new series to the execs that deals primarily with underwater archaeology. I'm sure there are other shows that deal with underwater discoveries but not nearly enough in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  35. In regards to SG --- you understated the issue. I'm thinking a whole TV channel for this stuff. So when I win the lottery.........

    ReplyDelete
  36. Let's be honest. Someone from H2 or H must see these blogs and know how "we the people" need more historical/exploration shows. I nominate Mr. Wolter to be the host! We can keep him busy well into retirement. Just sayin'.....

    ReplyDelete
  37. SG,

    I forwarded your suggestion on, but I can't guarantee anything. Most of the remaining archaeological sites probably are underwater. Since many ancient cultures lived along the coastlines in the distant past, these sites have been drown by rising sea level as the glaciers melted.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The first thought I had when I saw this episode is that the head could be related to the Olmec heads of Mexico or the Malakoff (Llano) heads of Texas. It could also be related to the Davenport Stele which suggests that Egyptian and perhaps Libyan sail boats made their way up the Mississippi.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't think about the Davenport Plates, but that’s a very interesting idea. Maybe that's something we should look into for an episode? If the Phoenicians did come up the Mississippi they would have gone right by Davenport. Mmmm?

      Delete
  39. Hey, Scott, great show! Has anyone ever tried to locate the murder scene mentioned on the Kensington Runestones? One days journey North of this Stone?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Scott,
    I live in Northern Nevada and I consider myself somewhat of an amateur archaeologist. I have amassed quite a nice collection of historic and prehistoric relics (back to 13,500+ yrs BP) from the peoples that called this area home.
    Now I have a question for you that I believe goes against the standard belief that the Clovis culture was the first group of hunter-gatherers in North America approx. 13,500 yr. BP.

    I personally think that I have tools made from stone that predate that 13,500 yrs. BP time scale. I feel this way because of where I found these tools, not just one or two but in one small area a dozen examples. These examples were found at a level above the desert floor (400-500 ft.) that is the first visible lake shore that has been preserved thanks to the climate that we have here in N. Nevada and the Great Basin as a whole. Little destruction of these time capsules allows you to see ions of lake shores of the past due to lack of water erosion of the topography due to our high desert climate, leaving it much the same as it has been for thousands of years.

    Now my question is this, do you think Scott that the Clovis culture is the first peoples to inhabit N. America or is that just old thinking and that cultures go back maybe in waves as far back as 20-25,000 yrs. BP. I personally do and just wanted your thoughts.

    Thank You, Kevin B.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kevin,

      In one of our Season 2 episodes we investigated this very question and I interviewed Dennis Stanford at the Smithsonian who presented convincing evidence to me that the Solutrean culture, that originated in what is not France, came over to North America traveling along the edge of glacial ice. He said these people came over here dating back as far as 20-25,000 years ago.

      I do not accept the Clovis Culture being the first in North America as does an ever growing number of archaeologists based on finds like yours.

      Delete
  41. Watched your "Ancient Egypt in NYC" show and was seriously irked by one thing. In the opening scenes when Scott is sitting down with the expert, he continually refers to "hieroglypics." I'm no Egyptologist, but I know that these are actually "Hieroglyphs." Not hieroglyphics. Dorothy, the expert, continually called them correctly, "Hieroglyphs" but Scott couldn't take a hint and kept using the wrong word.

    Hieroglyphs are particular kind of Egyptian picture-writing. Hieroglyphics is a word meant to describe picture writing that is "like" Hieroglyphs. Sort of like 'brownish' means 'like brown.' without actually being brown. The early Egyptian writing from before the more formalized Hieroglyphs, are called Hieroglyphics. But if it is hieroglyphs, then it's not Hieroglyphics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't recall exactly what I said, but you're probably right, and if I did say that I was wrong. Thanks for the clarification.

      Delete
    2. The expert only said "Hieroglyphs" like once that I noticed. Someone seems to be making a big deal out of a very minor detail. That park bench conversation took less than 5 minutes of the show, and Scott only used the incorrect term of "hieroglyphics" only about 2 or 3 times tops. The expert never saw fit to correct his minuscule mistake.
      So do you feel like the "big man on campus" now, Anonymous because you pointed out the difference between hieroglyphics and Hieroglyphs?

      Delete
    3. Hi Jenn,

      This person is being little nit-picky as either way it means the same thing. I prefer to be accurate of course, but I'm far from perfect. I'll do better next time. It's all good!

      Delete
  42. Scott Mastores M.D.January 15, 2015 at 8:10 AM

    Interesting feedback, show a hit, lots more info on waubansee stone available but not enough time to air it all, thanks to all those with contructive comments, hello to Scott and all involved in filming a great episode of America Unearthed! Scott Mastores MD

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hello Scott,

    I did get your email BTW, and I'm so glad you enjoyed the episode. You really did a great job and although we didn't get all the details of our examination and discussions into the episode, I do think we hit on the major points. Keep in mind, this amazing artifact has wallowed in obscurity for two centuries, so what we were able to do on the show was truly groundbreaking. You deserve a lot of credit for bringing it to our attention in the first place; thanks pal!

    Unfortunately, I'm sure there will be a resounding 'nothing' from academia as this artifact can only cause problems with the historical status quo. If only they had the mentality of realizing what an amazing opportunity this is for someone to be the first to seriously study this artifact and likely make history changing discoveries.

    At the very least, let's hope it get's out of the storage facility and on display so people can see it.

    Did you get a chance to read my paper on the examination we did yet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott W- rapid response surprises me, you must get this on a smart phone, as a first time poster on this blog I wasn't even sure if my post would transmit, let's persue nuclide spallation- that would silence the critics and add some scientific credibility to various hypotheses if age documented, I must say this blog is fairly civil and compares favorably with others that tend to be confused and irrational- keep up the good work and remember that the diffrence between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits

      SM

      Delete
    2. Scott- also, yes I read your paper- quite good, lets combine them and go forth

      sm

      Delete
    3. SM,

      I'm open to any and all scientific methodology that would add to the data base. As far as blogs go, I think it's only right that if people are going to discuss topics that relate to the episodes on our show, or if people have questions for me personally, they should have an avenue for going straight to the source.

      In my opinion, the other blogs don't really care about getting honest answers or seeking truth. If they did, they would post their comments here. Everything worthwhile should have limits in my opinion.

      Delete
    4. Scott,

      I'm in the midst of co-authoring another book, but if you want to take a stab at combining the two I can respond to that? Why don't we start with an outline and agree on that first? Shoot me an email when you get a chance.

      Delete
  44. Watched a repeat of the PA chamber episode; one of my faves. Care to share your thoughts on Barry Fell's conclusions? I live in a state that's riddled with these chambers or root cellars as some call them so it's something I've recently become more interested in. There is a suspicious small opening in a hillside on my parent's land that I'll be looking into when the weather gets better. It may be nothing at all but it's piqued my interest since I first watched this episode a few months ago.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Sara,

    I think many of these underground chambers are ancient and until I see compelling evidence that Native Americans made them, I think we have to look elsewhere. As far as Barry Fell goes, I think he did some brave, groundbreaking work and deserves a lot of credit for that. In a few other cases, I think he over-reached and was a little too flippant with his opinions.

    For the most part, he did a really good job opening the door in a serious way to early pre-Columbian contact in North America.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Just saw the episode, I found it bizarre that the location of the stone needs to remain secret. I don't expect any public displays any time soon, but it's encouraging that they allowed it to be shown this one time.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Did you check out how similar the bloodstone face is to representations and statues of Buddha.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I can see the resemblance, but not quite the same in my opinion. I still like the idea it's a blowing face carved in the hopes of favorable winds. I'm going with that for now.

      Delete
  48. I think they were concerned about all the other artifacts they had there; just the stuff they told us about was pretty interesting and it wasn't the most secure facility in the world that's for sure.

    They were right to keep the location secret.

    ReplyDelete
  49. One of the best episodes to date as well as one of the most fascinating objects to appear on the show. I will admit some of the topics of previous episodes I am more skeptical about. But the Waubansee Stone has me fascinated. All the evidence so far shows that this sculpture is most likely not some average American artifact. It warrants some serious study. Serious scientific study. And a team should be assembled to do detailed testing and analysis.

    I have a few thoughts on what could be done if it had not been considered.

    -- Crowdsource (or "Crowdfund") a study. If no research institutes are interested in such a potentially important object then take it to the fans of the show or to the internet. Put together either a team of experts willing to donate their time or a small crowdfunding or kickstarter to pay for equipment time to research the Stone.

    -- Put the visual surface of the stone and it's composition under total scrutiny with not just weathering analysis but Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), Electron spectroscopy, Chromatography, and the like.

    -- Samples that may have broken off the stone over time or tiny sample chips taken from different locations on the stone could hold a small microscopic fragment of pigment or some piece of the metal from the chisel used to carve the stone. It's possible to match that to known Phoenician or Aztec objects or maybe even possible to match certain compounds that can only be from one part of the world. If you get lucky there may be something in the stone that is still present after all this time. There are sophisticated tools that can find it but people need to pay for them and the time to do it. Incredible connections have been made in other studies that would not have been possible without this technology. Things can be proven today that were not possible before.

    I am sure that you know of these techniques and I know it takes money and time. It also requires people to care enough to want to be a part of the project. That is why I bring up the crowdsourced effort. It would be a way to get people directly involved not just in the show but with archaeology as well. Brad Meltzer has a show on H2 that does a crowdsourced effort to find missing objects and it's working to help find lost history. Why not do the same? It could be the best way to crack this mystery.

    I think some of these sites and objects, not all but some, really need some serious attention. I think this show might be able to change history if people have a way to contribute and be a part of the discovery. It could be a lot like Citizen Scientists for Space and Biology - but for Archaeology and History.

    And I think you can make it happen.

    ReplyDelete
  50. This is the exact attitude that is needed in academia for not just the Waubansee Stone, but several other artifacts that I have examined very closely. I realize to many people I might come off as a TV personality more than a scientist, but I can assure the opposite is true. Whenever I have offered an opinion, which hasn't been often enough for some people, it's because I have seen enough consistent and conclusive evidence to make a call.

    I have found plenty of fakes and hoaxes, but the history of this continent and indeed the world needs a major rewrite and it's time mainstream historians and other academics get serious about a whole bunch of things.

    The Waubansee Stone would be a great place to start.

    ReplyDelete
  51. The recent anonymous post is one of the best suggestions yet. To take that idea further, why don't you have the viewers vote on a single artifact to start further analysis. I think you would be pleasantly surprised by the number of people willing to donate.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Sara,

    That's actually a really good idea. Should we start a poll here with readers of this blog to vote for the one artifact or site they think should be seriously followed up by scholars and scientists? If so, I'll write a blog after this season of shows end in two weeks and let's see what happens.

    You can probably guess what I would vote for, but what do you guys think is most worthy?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Hi Scott, good idea for feedback about future topics of interest. I personally think the most worthy topic would be an in-depth analysis of all the corroborative evidences connected to the Kensington Runestone. I have found that diehard, hidebound skeptics try to give ZERO provenance to the various artifacts connected to the KRS, which is a mistake.

    Many people haven't read your Hooked X book, or H. Holand's earlier works, so they aren't aware of the many iron battle artifacts discovered throughout Minnesota (and close by). Most of these artifacts do come with some good provenance, which includes signed legal affidavits. All of these artifacts were not planted by 1800's immigrants, as "debunkers" would have us believe.

    Here is a very recent quote from a little-known skeptic's blog, in which the blog host is overtly saying that the KRS and all attending evidences are in the same category as Bigfoot. To me, this is going too far:

    "There is just as much evidence for the lost colonies of Romans, Jews, and Norse in Arizona, Tennessee, and Minnesota as there is for Bigfoot: none. Wolter sees the “artifacts” like Bigfoot hunters see footprints and hair, but as Wolter himself said, where’s the body?" (Recent JC blog.)

    One big problem I see facing the KRS is that people, skeptics and others, too, want to put the KRS and all of its attending evidences into a category with other absurdities. This is baggage gone amok and ultimately hurts the image of the KRS.

    The above quote comes from the same person who gets nervous about stoneholes and waterways being discussed in the same breath. But, the hundreds of stoneholes aren't leftovers from planned blasting--as he is STILL trying to mislead his readers about. The stoneholes are in fact corroborative evidences of past medieval activity up in this region, just as surely as most of the metal war weapons are corroborative evidences, yet some skeptics would like to completely disavow the evidences, which include even multiple Scandinavian petroglyphs. As you know, Scott, the stoneholes referred to, and the petroglyphs, show advanced aging...including the Copper Harbor carving of a verifiable Norse ship, complete with single mast, square sail and snakeheads!

    So, my vote goes to the COLLECTIVE abundance of evidences related to the KRS, which skeptics would like to do away with entirely. I look at all the medieval Scandinavian stoneholes in this region as the glue holding all this emerging history together. Again, I believe that sooner or later something with undeniable, "perfect" provenance will be found, which will finally quiet the naysayers--those haters of pre-Columbus "fringe" history in America.

    What I dislike seeing is the KRS so casually lumped in with the likes of Bigfoot and UFO's. This is no good. Even still, I look at the KRS as being the best example so far of you highlighting an absolutely real, authentic artifact. In this particular case, I say shame on those biased detractors of history truth. Why? Because I sincerely believe that the KRS is inviolate-able as a true medieval American artifact. It is authentic, whether skeptics like it or not.

    (1362, 130 years before Columbus sailed the ocean blue.)

    ReplyDelete
  54. So Gunn votes for the Kensington Rune Stone; excellent choice!

    Yes, I am bias...

    ReplyDelete
  55. Let's not be hasty now gentlemen. :-)
    We need to define the voting start and end date. It might also be helpful to limit the choices to 5 or 10 episodes. Perhaps Scott could base that list on the top x shows. That's my two cents.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Sara,

    I'm half joking, but if you'd like me to list the top ten artifacts and sites I think have the best chance of being truly history altering and realistically able to be scientifically vetted, I can do that. Here we go:

    1. Kensington Rune Stone
    2. Tucson Lead Artifacts
    3. Bat Creek Stone
    4. Newport Tower
    5. Spirit Pond Rune Stones
    6. Waubansee Stone
    7. Mustang Mountain Runic Inscription
    8. Noman's Land island Rune Stone
    9. Westford Knight Carving
    10. Du Luth Stone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gee, Not Burrows Cave?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous,

      You apparently haven't read my latest book. I'm the only person to date to definitively prove the authenticity or fraudulence of at least one artifact.

      I'll give you a clue how it went: Russell Burrows doesn't like me very much.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you totally on that one Scott. I would like to ask if you really think there were that many cultures that made pre Columbian contact and exploration of the Americas, or if you believe there was one or two that were more likely to be provable without a doubt. This seems to be a strong them with you, understandably. I ask respectfully, not with malice. Thanks, Mark from Oklahoma.

      Delete
    4. Mark,

      I do think that many cultures visited North America in the historical past. I have spent the large part of my research focusing on those who carved the rune stones with the Hooked X and built the Newport Tower, but there are many others that warrant the same attention from open-minded scholars.

      As far as provable; with the exception of the Mustang Mountain and the Noman's Land Island inscriptions, the list above are what I consider to have been definitively proven to authentic. More work needs to be done on Mustang and Noman's.

      Delete
    5. I totally agree with you on that Burrows Cave debacle. It seems you have a them of many different cultures making Pre Columbian contact. Do you think there is one culture who was more likely to make contact and explore the Americas? I ask respectfully, not as a hater or gouger. It just seems to be a common them you follow and how can it be likely that all of them were successful in making it. I like the show and I can see where people who are discounters can be disbelievers when so many shows are about groups making pre Columbian contact.. I get it that you use the scientific method to prove your hypothesis , but the show follows a theme of stating the findings and then seem to find evidence to prove the hypothesis instead of the other way around. Again, I mean this respectfully, not going off on a rant against you and why you are wrong at everything. Thanks, Mark.

      Delete
    6. I think the most interesting and most likely in my opinion are the Viking or Slavic exploration and the Newport Towe angle. with the archeoastronomy alignments which are factually documented on the show during the solstice.

      Delete
    7. Mark,

      I'm not that sensitive so you don't need to apologize for asking questions. I appreciate your trying to be respectful, but it isn't necessary.

      Keep in mind we are making "TV", although we try very hard to stick to the scientific method whenever possible. And we don't always conclude these historical mysteries are the result of foreign cultures coming to N. America. One example was the episode about the Judaculla Rock and the Red Bird petroglyph. We considered the possibility of an ancient culture creating them, but in the end I concluded they were carved by the Cherokee.

      Delete
    8. I also believe in the authenticity of the well known Rune Stones, including the Kensington, Heavener, Spirit Pond, etc. Anyone who has seen the Heavener stone has got to take pause about why and how it would have been faked, and propagating a hoax of this scale and hoping it would even be found. Common Sense . Occams Razer, people.

      Delete
  57. I think you should wait until the end of the season and then list the top 10 sites out of all of your America Unearthed episodes in a separate blog. You could choose from all seasons. It sounds like a lot of fun!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Jenn,

    I think I'll do that as a separate blog after the season is over. Besides, I forgot to list what arguably could be number one on the list: America's Stonehenge.

    Duh...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I for one will look forward to the blog...but not to the end of this season! ;)

      Delete
    2. Watched your show on the waubansee stone. Can the bowl in the top be tested for blood, if it was used for ritual sacrafice

      Delete
  59. Scott,

    I am glad you liked my "Crowdsourcing" idea. I should have posted from a non-anon account so I can add to the conversation more productively.
    I will do what I can to help. There are many ways to make this work. The voting on the site or artifact that should be put under greater study
    is exactly the right idea.

    We are entering a new era in Archaeology that will reveal a lot of history that was previously hidden (or ignored). Technology like robotics and concepts

    such as crowdsourcing can change the game. Based on the popularity of America Unearthed there is an army of people who show interest in this area of history.

    If even only 1 percent participate -- that is many thousands of people -- this can change everything.

    I would agree with you that the Newport Tower and the Kensington Rune stone probably have more potential in terms of further scientific discovery that can be

    done. Waubansee is profound but there is no actual "site" to work with and less to analyse about the artifact itself. If we have to pick one to focus on

    first I would say it should be put to the fans. Nothing wrong with pointing people in the right direction though. In regards to voting it should be done in a

    way that has the least likely chance of "cheating" so maybe require non-anon accounts such as google or facebook.

    It is exciting to see the positive reception for taking this to the "crowd".

    There is much to learn. Many can help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. Sorry about my spacing fail. Cut and paste from a notepad file was not my friend.

      Delete
    2. Excellent ideas! Keeping people interested in history is a ver noble cause! And what better way than to actively include the fans!

      Delete
  60. Here are some resources for posting polls in blogspot.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoK9lHMjnDc
    http://aturntolearn.blogspot.com/2013/06/how-to-add-poll-to-your-blog.html

    I think this concept could go as far as having it's own website or it's own section of history.com with it's own social community that can directly participate in solving these mysteries. Fan efforts could be focused on specific projects. There they can raise funds or participate in other ways.

    I think you would be surprised what would happen if you ran a spot for America Unearthed next season leading in with... "We want you to help us solve these ancient mysteries."

    ReplyDelete
  61. Robert,

    I really like this idea of concerned citizens taking an active role in getting serious research done. There's all kinds of potential here and at some point, if this is really going to happen it needs to be organized. I'm all for doing what I can, but there needs to be some type of structure to keep things moving ahead.

    I have a number of my own questions. Since this really is a "cause of the people" who are sincerely concerned about getting the history right, how do we keep all informed and make sure their input is considered? Besides me, we need to reach out to other scientists and scholars (yes, I said scholars) to get the appropriate ones involved.

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can work up some more ideas and get back.
      I just want to see the truth discovered. As does everyone.

      Delete
    2. If I had to make a guess as to how many fans of the show, citizen scientists, actual scientists, and scholars would be interested ... I would think it could be a small army in time. At least it seems that way with the interest the topic is getting these days. None of this has to stop with the "Americas" but maybe to keep things simple and for the purposes of the show it would make sense to only cover Pre-Columbian discovery and exploration of the Americas.

      To get serious people on board the project would need to be taken seriously and respected. The community could be organized with this in mind from the start.

      Each community member can have a profile if they wish to have one. With that profile they can become a cog in the wheel of discovery whether they are just simply a fan -- or are a leading researcher.

      You could use a forum type structure to manage the project. There are many services that offer this. You might also use history.com's site but I am not sure it would be very flexible if it had to run on their servers. Other than companies (like Ning) and others that have paid online community services you can use a huge range of software :
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software

      Chris Anderson from Wired magazine used "Ning" to build an huge community for his drone company for example. They were able to accomplish a lot.

      If this project results in it's first truly new discovery, and (possibly) gets worldwide attention for it, then the experts, public, and media will take note. And from there it could grow into an ever larger movement that will have increased resources and people behind it. Thereby resulting in more discovery.

      All of this could start with you and the show as the initiator. The "community" can build around this and grow. Similar to something like a "Colbert Nation" for archaeology. Just like how Colbert would use humor but still accomplish real results. In the midst of the fun, theories, and stories some people have on America Unearthed there are still very real discoveries that can and will be made.

      Imagination is as important to discovery as reality. Just ask Columbus.

      Delete
  62. Robert - fantastic idea! If you are new to this blog, welcome aboard and thanks for the great idea!

    I agree that we need to address anonymous voting. Truth be told, I would vote several times for Spirit Pond Rune Stones......no, I mean KRS....ummm actually American Stonehenge. Uhhh.....this already difficult and voting hasn't even commenced.

    This will certainly be something fun to work on after S3 ends (heavy sigh).

    Scott - I think there would be a strong interest in keeping the blog going well after the series ends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Sara.

      There are many technical ways to reduce repeat voting. It can be made more or less fair using IP address restrictions and/or requiring facebook or google accounts to vote. Facebook being a little harder than google to make multiple accounts with.

      My area of knowlegde is in systems thinking and solving problems online with this method. The internet is the most powerful tool on earth and the people are it's engine. If you want to find out answers -- take it to the "crowd". Take it online.

      That being said I started watching old and new episodes of America Unearthed this last month and I was amazed that many historians and scientists are so resistant to change even when presented with such logical arguments. I am not saying they need to accept guesswork and theories not based on facts. But given the actual evidence that is available it's essentially foolish not to at least accept the obvious :

      It's highly likely that multiple peoples visited the Americas before Columbus. What would be extraordinary would be to assume they did not. Whether they came on a single ship or a fleet -- it has happened. We already have proof of it with Leif Erikson. So let's find the rest of them!

      So back to the objective : Build a system online that allows people to contribute to this new era of archaeological and historical discovery. In our case it's specifically - Pre-Columbian exploration of the America's by non-natives. And then use that "community" to help make new discoveries. They can discuss what areas of discovery need attention, who will work on the team, who will fund each project and how ...etc.

      There would have to be online community leaders, citizen scientists, scholars willing to listen and rethink, and scientists willing to investigate with an un-biased eye.

      I will stop there for now. I know this all seems like a lot but it can be boiled down into a "system" that can be put online in a simple form to start and can grow more complex from there. How many people actually want to be a part of this needs to be learned first. That can be done by "testing the waters".

      I will have a better idea of the structure soon for you. And then everyone (and you Scott) can decide what from the "template" can work and what is just too much for now. Sorry if I talk a lot but I feel this can really change history. Maybe it's too much too soon but this will be the way things get solved in the future. Might as well start now.

      I am just tired of such amazing things lying around on the ground (or in the sea) eroding away as we do little to find, preserve, and identify them.

      Delete
  63. If you want to stick with something simpler without building an enitre community at this time :

    -- Create a blog specifically to do a vote to determine which site or artifact (episode) is deemed the most popular to warrant further study. Essentially the fan favorite as we were discussing. An option in this top 10 or top 5 list would be to include what additional work you or the "community" would like to see done with each said artifact or site. This could include further independent scientific analysis, historical research, or possibly even sponsoring of a further dig at the site. Maybe bring in a drone and do some scanning :) etc....

    -- Next comes the question of who will pay for the study. Or who is willing to contribute to this further analysis. If it's just a matter of equipment time and paid independent research. Or if any researchers or institutions are willing to do this work to futher the field out of their own pockets or time. The network could cover it as part of production being considered an investment in the popularity of the show. Or a crowdfunding effort could raise the capital using an indiegogo or a kickstarter page. Not sure if the logistics of using an outside site would work legally for H2. It's definitely new ground there.

    -- Then a few different things can happen based on what the producers or you are willing to do.

    1 - This winning topic for further study will be given it's own full episode to reveal the results of the study.

    2 - The topic could get a small section at the end of one episode or a small part of one or two episodes. Like an "updates" segment.

    3 - Or this further study would be part of an internet only promotion to attract attention and more users to history.com.

    --- If this method proves popular it could bring in new viewers and further engage current ones as well as pave the way for a future "army of citizen archaeologists" community that we discussed. This new community could help with funding and research as it grows.

    There are a lot of ways to play this out. It just depends of how deep everyone wants to go.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Wow, Robert! You really think BIG! You definitely have ME excited! Though I can't speak for the rest of AU viewers. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  65. Liking these ideas.
    Scott - kudos to you for supporting your viewers.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Big wall of text. I know. But it's something to think about for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Robert and all,

    There is another problem that needs to be addressed in this arena of controversial artifacts and sites, most notably in North America. That problem is Wikipedia. For those who are unaware, "Wiki" is militantly anti-diffusion and has an editorial staff that is largely hostile toward both this subject matter, and users, who try to defend the artifacts and edit the pages.

    One of the top editors who sanitizes the pages on the KRS, Bat Creek Stone, Tucson Lead Artifacts, Newport Tower, etc., is a Brit named Doug Weller. I have a long history with this guy who has poisoned this reference tool to the point where it can no longer be trusted for anything.

    A little over a year ago I tried to remove some fraudulent references from my Wiki bio. The editors would not allow me to do that per their ridiculous rules. I became so frustrated with these power-trippers that I threatened legal action unless they either removed the fraudulent citations or my bio altogether. After a week of ridicule from multiple editors they finally removed my bio permanently. I am quite fine with this as I'd rather have nothing on the web about my research than biased BS.

    I urge everyone to read the declarative statements and misleading information and citations about these artifacts and see if you think this supposedly "neutral" reference source is balanced or if it might have an agenda. Because I know more about the history of the research of the KRS than anyone else living today, I can assure you the Wiki page is far from balanced or factually correct. It's a joke and is a big part of the problem we are all unknowingly dealing with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are absolutely right about that. There have been multiple people trying to expose Wiki for what it is, but to little or no avail. But should we let that stop us?

      Delete
    2. Let's get a campaign going to expose Wiki to the world at the same time we decide the most worthy artifacts/site to pursue further research and testing.

      Delete
    3. That should be a seperated campaign. Otherwise, it will get twisted so it looks like the efforts are only to hide pseudoarchiology. It's a fine line to try to expose them while validating your work, Scott.

      Delete
    4. I actually did mean to have them be separate campaigns; I just didn't articulate that point very well.

      My bad.

      Delete
    5. LOL. I was just trying to emphasize the dicey ground you want to walk. ;)

      Delete
    6. I walk dicey ground every day; I welcome the challenge.

      Delete
  68. There are thousands of battles over truth, opinion, "facts", and lies on Wikipedia every day. Some get out of control as you have experienced first hand. For example just the other day:

    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-from-gender-related-articles-amid-gamergate-controversy

    Notice in the article it states that the site is controlled by a user-run body. Maybe it's time to play the long game and work on positioning. Why bother trying to change wikipedia from the outside when you can change it from within.

    But I have to say I think the main focus should remain on uncovering more information about existing sites and artifacts as well as finding new ones. Imagine uncovering a Knights Templar, Chinese, or even a Phoenician Pre-Columbian gravesite in North America. Or maybe the remains of one of their ships just off the coast. That is something the fans of the show want to see. That is something I think they would be willing to help make happen within this new "community". It may start small with a just vote and then grow much larger with time. But even Wikipedia will not be able to deny the evidence if it becomes a mountain in their front yard.

    All we have to do is dig. They are there... waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I am most intrigued with the notion that the Waubansee face is blowing a favorable wind for sailors entering Lake Michigan, and that the bowl atop the rock is for some sort of ablution associated with creating good carma for the journey into the vast "sea" of the lake. Thus the image is not of any real person but a caricature of a "god of good winds." This trading post at the lake entrance would also have been an obvious resting place and ship construction and repair site for craft going in and out of the big lake. As for a timeline, the content and location of the stone suggests something from the medieval ages or earlier. That this stone is not displayed at the Chicago History Museum seems to be evidence that the staff and/or board of the museum are embarrassed by the previous crass exploitation of the stone as a fountain. I worked for many years in the building at the site of Fort Dearborn, and would have liked to some historic recognition of the stone at the site, as has been done with the outlines of the fort and the battle fought there. Perhaps the lack of accurate history surrounding the stone is the reason for so little recognition and public display. I hope the exposure Scott Wolter has given the subject may change that attitude. I would like to see the Chicago History Museum re-introduce the Waubansee Stone to the city, and open up the discussion of its meaning and heritage. By the way, I live about two blocks from that wonderful museum.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I agree the museum should get it out on display and believe that they will. What happened in the past to the artifact is part of the story and they should tell it.

    We can't change the past, so let's learn from it.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Have you seen Simon Schama's film, "A History of Britain?" The Waubansee stone bears a very striking resemblance to the sculpture discussed at 17 minutes in the first episode, a "talking head" stone with a deliberately scooped out cavity on top.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Wikipedia does their best to discredit America Unearthed. So you do have a very valid point that they will make things very difficult to validate any extended research on any of the items featured on this show.
    Having a free online database that replaces bulky traditional encyclopedias is a great idea, but they have poorly executed it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jenn,

      Of course they try to discredit our show because it serves their agenda. If enough people demand they straighten up and fly right, that's the only way it will change.

      Delete
  73. Sharon,

    I have not seen that film; I'll have to check it out!

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  74. Scott,

    In one of your books you mention a researcher who has looked into the "mooring stone" holes. Where can I find the latest on these holes? I know of one of these holes near my home and would like to see if it is linked to any other locations in the area.

    Thanks for any guidance.

    -T. Mayne

    ReplyDelete
  75. T. Mayne,

    We prefer to call these "Stone Holes" because "mooring stones" implies an interpretation that in most cases in the U.S. is not correct. A person you might want to contact is Judi Rudebusch in South Dakota, who has done a lot of work on stone holes: judij@tnics.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks I was going to look her up in your last book. Keep up the awesome work, the truth is coming to the light.

      Delete
  76. I should have said stone holes, wouldn't want to feed colavito any more fodder! That guy is a piece of work, right?

    ReplyDelete
  77. The short reference in this history documentary to head sculpture starts at 17 minutes. It is compellingly alike. I am very intrigued.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhN2_fQN-Pg

    ReplyDelete
  78. The sculpture referred to is the Hendy Head of Anglesey. I just am quite impressed with the similarity.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anyway, thanks so very much for your attention and for the inspiring puzzles of History.

    ReplyDelete
  80. This paper mentions that "Celtic head stones" were placed at bridges or fords. Section 6.5.3.
    http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3472/2/298881_vol2.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  81. Scott,

    Is the exact spot where the stone was found a possible site for a dig? If not then what about doing an underwater river dig (dredging) in the spot nearest where the stone was found? I am trying to think of further areas of investigation that can be done for the stone. I had mentioned advanced analysis of the stone surface. But what if the area around the stone was used for a brief time as a stopping point for whoever carved it. Maybe there was trash or other objects (or gravesites) left by navigators using that exact area. Seems like a wise place to look.

    It would be great to have a planned set of ideas for further research for each artifact on the "fan favorite list". This way there can be a realistic set of goals listed next to each one so people know what they are getting :)

    Obviously one cannot dig up the whole river within a square mile of the site (which would still be awesome). But a basic run down of what could happen for each site/artifact would be a good idea I think. I don't know of the red tape and costs involved in a dig but I assume they can be lengthy and expensive. I think the body of evidence for all these sites could greatly benefit by further digs and more scientific analysis. This would build the proof until it's enough for wide acceptance.

    Oh and on a total side note :

    You should register domain names for each of the artifacts and sites you think is most important and make each it's own information depot for your research. Those domains would possibly rise above wikipedia's links. It does work often. I have used this tactic before and I noticed some people have already done something like this for some artifacts. If you put the effort in then it will rank number one.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I have to admit, the Newport Tower might be the best chance though. They also seem to be "dig friendly" there considering there have been many digs done and even some recently :

    "They concentrated on areas directly in line with the Tower pillars, and in two of the three major pits they dug, found columns of discoloration, about 35 cm in diameter, which appeared to indicate the former presence of substantial wooden posts about 4 metres out from the tower walls, possibly supports for a wooden roof. No such discoloration was found in the third aligned test pit, or in a smaller pit dug without reference to the Tower columns. Small finds included charcoal, but carbon dating of this was inconclusive."

    Now that is something very exciting to ponder. Imagine what could be sitting right there in the dirt that might have been missed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert,

      That is exactly what caught my attention at the time. They are likely remnants of the wooden ambulatory we still see evidence of in the Tower today. I'm confident if a dig was conducted under the sidewalk where none has been performed before, we'll likely find the evidence of the six remaining structural wooden beams.

      Delete
  83. I just had a interesting idea.

    Someone should try to carve a replica of this face out of the exact same type of glacial boulder using tools that would have been available at the time. Then put the stone under some type of "accelerated weathering testing" to see the result. If 200 years of simulated weathering can be reached then it could be compared to the actual weathering. Might be difficult but it would an interesting experiment. Even leaving it out under natural weathering for 10 years would be an interesting test. Might be a long time to wait but it could tell us something. It would also make a good case if it's truly ancient to be able to show the huge difference between the two to the public. It would also draw more attention to the object and further research on weathering testing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert,

      In theory, your idea is a good one. In practice, it would be rather difficult. One of the reason is there is evidence of wear or mechanical abrasion on several areas of the carving such as the nose. There has been significant wear on the nose that show a different, less developed weathering profile than the sides.

      However, nothing ventured, nothing gained, and despite some of the complications I'm sure valuable data and insight would be gained from such an experiment.

      Delete
  84. Scott:

    I really like the notion that the open mouth is in a pursed lip position suggestive of a god blowing the wind at the entrance to the inland seas of the great lakes. A much more pleasing notion than a sacrificial basin. Also the qyest I suggest is to find the missing base maybe at the old site of the CHM/ scott mastores

    ReplyDelete
  85. Hi Scott,

    You live in the Chicago area; why not take up the investigation to find that other piece. You proved your worthiness on the show; go for it!

    ReplyDelete
  86. Scott

    That's the plan next time I am up there, I was reallly surprised to find out that the old site of the CHM was also one of the places that they took the bodies from the Eastland (some controversy about that ) . WB may indeed have bad juju/

    I don't get the deal about choosing a profile on this blog- I may be missing the concept
    Scott Mastores

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott,

      Don't worry about the profile stuff; you're getting in and that's all that matters. If by chance you do find that other half. Call me and I'll zip down there!

      Delete
  87. Please see you and two other gentlemen standing in the doorway of the monument where Jacques de Molay was burned at the stake. The two doors and lentel at the top all in relief describe an ornate and Huge M like the Roman numerial M for 1,000. It is so large and you were so close you may not have noticed what it was much as you pointed out M's all over the place in the Templar church and many other places not obvious to others for centuries apparently. The symbology is just great if nothing else. Great documentary giving me much to study and think about. Thanks, Jack Sanders

    ReplyDelete
  88. Mr. Wolter,

    I am a grad student and I applaud your endeavors to practice true scientific study. I believe if science leads you somewhere else besides the "accepted" route, then you should pursue it wherever it leads. It is only inevitable that dry, dusty academics that legitimize their assertions with titles and pieces of paper would take offense. I think you might find the documentary, Exodus: Patterns of Evidence interesting. The makers challenge established thought on Ancient Egyptian chronology and it is revealed that the reason the opposition reject new ideas is because it's too much of a hassle to admit they were wrong and begin the process to rewrite it. I'm glad there are people like you out there that actually, honestly seek the truth. It's frustrating that so-called historians and archaeologists will bury their head in the sand just to hold to a status quo. Thank you and keep going! :)

    ReplyDelete
  89. More specifically, the documentary Exodus: Patterns of Evidence features David Rolle and his efforts to re-date some major events in Ancient Egyptian chronology, called the "new chronology." This would also affect much of the dating of other civilizations at the same time and obviously, he faces much of the same pushback and ridicule you might be seeing.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Correction: David Rohl. My apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Erica,

    The path I followed wasn't necessarily "different" for me. I work in the professional field and was hired to study the Kensington Rune Stone, in 2000. Upon reaching my peer-reviewed (by academics and professionals) conclusions and presenting them at the Midwest Plains Archaeological Conference was when things started to go in the ditch. It had nothing to do with the specifics of the work I did, it had everything to do with the conclusions.

    I would have been fine with calm, intelligent questions, but it was largely personal attacks from academics in disciplines outside of geology that got my dander up. From that time on; I was inspired to get the bottom of the problem and I now know what the issues are.

    As far as looking into Egyptian history to better understand the events surrounding the time of Jesus, you are right on the money. I will continue to pursue this line of inquiry and report my findings.

    Best to you in your studies Erica.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Scott love the show! I am an archaeologist and can appreciate your ability to talk about these important subjects in a way that would be difficult for someone of my training.

    Keep up the great work and maybe we can rewrite the history books to properly credit those who deserve it.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Anonymous 1,

    I can understand your desire to remain anonymous. However, if you would like to chime in, just use "Anonymous 1" and give whatever insight you are comfortable with. Many archaeologists have reached out and shared valuable information despite the sometimes hostile environment waiting for those who step out of line. It's just one of many problems in not just archaeology, but other disciplines that has created the historical problems we are discussing.

    I am well aware of stories where superiors of archaeologists at the state level, have waltzed in to certain sites, taken over, and published high profile, signature works as their own and taken undeserved credit. One situation I can't share is very high profile and will come to light in due time.

    This is part of the reason the trolls get so angry; for we will expose this unethical behavior if we get the chance. The best example I can talk about is the fraud the Smithsonian Institution continues to perpetrate with the Bat Creek Stone. See my earlier post where I published my exchange with the Institution just after the artifact went to the Museum of the Cherokee Indian last spring.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Scott,

    Thank you for responding to my comments. You are certainly in a polarizing environment. I think some of that is by design of the show. I applaud them for selecting a geologist; I've always felt that geology and archaeology complimented one another. You are in a unique position to advance some radical ideas, just keep the science involved and don’t let the hoaxes and other distractions become too big a part of the story.

    My area of study is in Middle America. I thought the episode about the Aztecs originating from North America to be very compelling. It is accepted that they originated out of the North and were heavily influenced by the preceding societies such as the Olmec, Toltec, and Maya. As you know there were trade routes in the ancient Americas between indigenous groups as far north as the present day United States and as far South as South America. These groups often traded in more than material goods. It was an exchange of religious beliefs as well as languages. It should come as no surprise that we should find so many similarities between the Mississippian Mound building cultures such as Cahokia and their counter parts in Middle, Central, and Southern America during those same time periods.

    Personally I believe that indigenous people of Mexico share ancient Chinese ancestry. I've spent a great deal of time in Mexico and have seen the epicanthic eye folds that are only found in people of Asian descent in the demographics of the modern day population. There are stories of the Chinese travelling to the Americas around the time of the Vikings, might be something to consider for a future episode?

    You've brought a lot to my attention, specifically the injustice the Smithsonian is doing to our country’s true origins. I agree with you, they won’t like some of these narratives and would actively suppress the information, until it was accepted by the greater academic world.

    Our history books should represent Christopher Columbus’ voyage for what it was, and the impact it had on the world. He wasn't the first European to make it to the New World. However his journey did usher in the Colombian exchange which has forever changed both sides of the globe.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Anonymous 1,

    Keep in mind it is not just me, but several scholars have appeared on the show to share their research that sometimes upsets their colleagues as well along with the status quo. Dennis Stanford is the probably the most well known in archaeology circles.

    Columbus certainly does have a place in the history books, but his story is a lot more complicated starting with who the hell he actually was. I'm confident time will vet him out as well.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I recall the episode with the picture of Columbus' ships with the Knights Templar Crosses on their sails. I was shocked that I had noticed that before. It looks like a fleet of Templar ships. Can it be a coincidence or is there a real connection? I'll watch for future episodes in hopes this is more thoroughly discussed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not a coincidence at all; in fact take a closer look at the names of Columbus' ships. Translate the Spanish into English and see what you get?

      Delete
  97. It seems to me that the existing "paradigm" is trying very hard to protect their "turf". But also, in the long run, it will be the younger generations who will change the story (sooner rather then later).

    Is it not interesting the "existing" professors have no thought as to what their legacy will be when they are "discredited" after they have "passed" and no one is going to "protect" them. Just look at the noise makers in the last 5 years or so, that have been marginalized because of their entrenched views which are now discredited. The list is amazing.

    But yet, even on this blog, they are still noticeable. Their day will come..... I am on other blogs, mostly scientific, where different rules are applied:

    1) your full name and email address (verified by phone calls and verbal communication)
    2) no trashing -- one rant gets you kicked out
    3) providing non-researched information (get your sources straight - one wrong source you either retract the comment or your kicked out, etc.)
    4) NEVER deviate from the subject matter of the thread. (that would get rid of 100% of the noisemakers here)

    I think that's enough to make my point. I applaud Scott for the efforts he's going through to provide a "fair and balanced" response forum. But we are past all of this. Its time for the posters to ask the questions or provide additional information or sources.

    I do hope that Scott will, in the future, provide a blog or forum where you have to provide all of your information (whether it is posted or not is another matter). That way, he or his representatives are able to call you on a real phone and ask what your interest is in the matter. There are a number of people who are raising many questions here, some are "scientific", others are not.

    It all boils down to the KRS -- it is real, legitimate, and sitting in front of you. It is "probably" not the only one, either. A poster must recognize that for the stone and the explorers to get to Minnesota, there had to be a whole lot of exploration and mapping that GOT BACK to the OLD WORLD.

    So where are the maps????

    If you have a problem with this blog regarding your beliefs, etc., no one is stopping you from having your own blog.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Really Excellent blog.This non-explosive demolition agent is easy to use, cost effective and a safer option for silently breaking up hard materials like rock or concrete. Non Explosive Demolition Agent

    ReplyDelete
  99. Hi Scott,

    First let me say I really enjoy your show on H2 America Unearthed. My 12 year old daughter and I have watched almost all the episodes from this season and from season 1 and 2 off and on this past year. It is great to watch my son and daughter learn about world History in school and then watch H2 shows like yours and make some connections. I think that the more young kids learn about new theories of American and European history the more they are apt to listen to new theories when they become adults and Scientist. I have always had an interest in the Knights Templar and that time period since I was young. I live in the Bay Area CA and I have visited almost all the museums the Bay Area has to offer. I must confess I have not read your books on the hooked X and the KRS. I have just read about them online. I am going to purchase three books you have authored this week and I look forward to reading them.
    Last year we visited for the first time a museum in San Jose CA called the Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum. It is a very nice museum with tons of information and artifacts. It seems like the Rosicrucians and Freemasons have some connection.
    My question to you is: during your research on the Hooked X, KRS and other artifacts have you ever come across anything about the Rosicrucians? Are they connected with the Knights Templar, Freemasons and Egyptians in some way?
    Thank you for all the great research you have done and I look forward to season 4.
    Steve

    ReplyDelete
  100. I enjoy the show America Unearthed. Much of it is farfetched speculation. And mistaken information. In one show, for instance, you refer to ancient people in British Isles as Celts and another show as Irish circa 3500 BC. There were no Irish then. They were the Celts. One guest on the show kept saying Celts like the basketball team.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Hi, Scott. I would like to recommend a book you might like. Regarding your episode of Roanoke on America Unearthed. " Solving the Mystery of the Lost Colony of Roanoke" by Lee Miller. She is native American and brings in much more detail related to your investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I am fascinated by your investigations of old structures in New England. FYI, I have lived in W.VA for a time which is near and nearly identical to PA. Your investigation of the underground basin of water is not as complicated as you made it out to be. Both states had or have wells. Since older settlements were unable to dig wells 100 ft. or more, finding a spring was like hitting the lottery. The spring in that structure could be an archaic spring house. The people there would have been elated to have cold, fresh, easily accessible water to DRINK and water livestock and crops. Hiding it would have prevented nearby people from flocking to the area to take the water. DUH.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Sandy,

    I think you're being a little nit-picky, but we do have a certain amount of speculation for sure. How far fetched is a matter of opinion. They are questions that need to be asked.

    ReplyDelete
  104. The book about Roanoke sounds very good; that is one episode that begs for a follow-up.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Sandy,

    My we have a rather flippant attitude don't we? I don't think potable water in that part of the country was such a eureka find as you might think and I certainly don't buy they would have built such an elaborate stone and mortar structure that deep underground that just happens to align with the setting summer solstice sun simply for water only.

    I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Do you think the large face carving recently found on Reeks Island outside Vancouver Canada looks similar to the Waubansee Stone? I know they are not the same size, but something about them looks similar to me. I wonder if they come from the same group of people? Would love to hear your opinion.

    -M

    ReplyDelete
  107. M,

    I'm not convinced yet that face is manmade. It needs to be looked at closely to ensure it is manmade or a freak of nature. It sure looks manmade in the video, but I wouldn't run too far yet until we know what it is for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I agree. Thank you for your prompt reply!
    -M

    ReplyDelete
  109. Shannon MacKellarAugust 3, 2015 at 9:58 PM

    Scott,
    Although I did not read every single post here, it seems nobody has factored in the correlation between the Waubansee Stone and the miniature Egyptian sarcophagus. If my theory is correct, not only will the mini sarcophagus fit near perfectly into the mouth of the face carved into the Waubansee Stone, but more of these mini sarcophagus' could be found buried in more burial mounds of the area.
    Being a history major and being in the habit of doing much research, I completely agree with Scott's conclusions about the Waubansee Stone being Phoenician in origin. The stone was indeed used as an alter, whether by sacrifice or for babies that had already died for "natural" reasons. When coming to a "new" world, children and babies were more susceptible to disease and malnutrition. These children were cremated, leaving only ash as their remains.
    Not wanting their souls to be left to wander around aimlessly, they believed that if they shaped a small figure into a tiny sarcophagus and placed this tiny sarcophagus in the mouth of the alter stone, the sarcophagus would collect the soul of the child.
    Once the soul was collected, the sarcophagus was removed and buried with others within the burial mounds for the eternal afterlife.
    For further explanation, wikipedia defines sarcophagus as: A sarcophagus (plural, sarcophagi; sarcophaguses) is a box-like funeral receptacle for a corpse, most commonly carved in stone, and displayed above ground, though it may also be buried. The word "sarcophagus" comes from the Greek σάρξ sarx meaning "flesh", and φαγεῖν phagein meaning "to eat", hence sarcophagus means "flesh-eating"; from the phrase lithos sarkophagos (λίθος σαρκοφάγος). Since lithos is Greek for stone, lithos sarcophagos means "flesh-eating stone". The word also came to refer to a particular kind of limestone that was thought to decompose the flesh of corpses interred within it.[1][2]
    Again, this is just a theory. Action would have to be taken to either prove or disprove it. I would love to be there to know the outcome.
    Scott,
    America Unearthed is my absolute favorite program. I find every episode incredibly fascinating and thought provoking. Thank you for your work.
    Shannon (Shannic76)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Shannon,

      I just went down in the basement, grabbed the shabtis and measured it to be sure. I know the opening of the mouth is approximately one inch wide and the feet end of the statue is 1-3/8" wide and the widest width of the body is just under 2-1/2". The shabtis I own would not fit in the mouth, but they come in all sizes so there could have been a smaller one in the past, perhaps buried in another mound nearby that does fit.

      Regardless, it's an interesting theory and until we have answered the question of the origin of the Waubansee Stone most reasonable theories are still on the table.

      Delete
    2. Shannon MacKellarAugust 4, 2015 at 7:26 AM

      Thank you for the clarification with the measurements on the shabtis.
      It will definitely be interesting to see what else is discovered.

      Delete
  110. Scott, I am aware of two spots in Seminole county Oklahoma, where a series of holes were drilled (for lack of knowledge of what the method was) in large, multi tone sandstone rock, in a perfect equilateral triangle measuring 3ft across. This is several miles from the location of carves horses, snakes, and other animals in the sandstone rocks. It has been suggested they may have been used for orienteering by using some type of apparatus, but that is speculation. I also heard, but have never seen this part myself, that there is an inscription on an upright large house sized rock that has runic type characters. The gentleman who originally told me about these has since passed, and I am trying to locate someone who is familiar with these carvings. (I have seen the snake/horse carvings myself and know for a fact they exist) just not the "runic" inscription. Ever heard of anything in this area? This would be about 85-120 miles Southwest of Turkey Mountain (Tulsa)

    ReplyDelete
  111. Mark,

    The runic inscription in Oklahoma you are referring to is the Heavener Rune Stone. I have seen it a couple of times and I am convinced by the geological aspects of the carved characters that it is many centuries old.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I was just thinking right from the beggining that the face, with open mouth and possibly closed eyes, looked like a man blowing. Like a wind God or something like that. And with Phoenicians having such a strong sea culture I'd think that wind was important to them. Are they known for worshiping wind or wind God? Was there any other culture that did? Crete? Egyptians? Any thoughts on this?

    ReplyDelete
  113. Really fascinated by the Pre Greco Roman almost Sumerian features of the Waubansee stone. Incredible to finally get some more solid cultural references to what these early explorers depicted themselves as making a good hint to their origin. I live in New England and really enjoyed the episode on America's Stonehenge. There are many strange stone chambers in my area some with documented solstice alignments. Other structures I have heard resemble beehives in shape and appear almost like cloister cells in early churches. The locals have always known about them while hunting and have wondered on possible Celtic or Phoenician origins. I believe most are mortarless flat stacked stone constructions. I totally believe that the mystery copper miners were Minoan or even crazy as it sounds Atlantean. Both cultures supposedly got wealthy from a red metal probably copper and bronze. These structures might be all that's left and no one has a clue. A similar campaign of disinformation surrounds these sites too with local universities seemingly completely disinterested and only amateur archeologists doing any of the work. A reporter for a local newspaper in Greenfield Massachusetts has written extensively about them and has started a kind of tip line and forum to report new sites and findings. Check it out if you can. Another Massachusetts tip for you is the Dighton Rock in the Bridgewater Triangle it supposedly has runes on it and all sorts of weird things have been associated with the area... Thanks again for continuing to give history its true place in things!

    ReplyDelete
  114. I recently ordered a book I found online. It's called "A Brief Guide To Celtic Myths & Legends" by Martyn Whittock. I ordered based on description only so I saw the cover of the book for the first time when I unboxed it upon arrival. At the top of the front cover there is a picture of a carving of The Dagda, the main god in Irish mythology. The first thing I noticed was how similar the image of this god is to the Waubansee stone! This got me to looking for more images of Irish and Celtic gods. Unfortunately, while the book I ordered does appear to be quite interesting, there are no illustrations. But a Google search showed a variety of images related to Celtic gods and I was intrigued to see the close similarities of the shapes of the faces compared to the face of the Waubansee stone!
    It is too bad that so much of the Celtic culture and historical evidences were destroyed during the last 500 years or so. The Puritan movement in Great Britain was so incredibly destructive! So much evidence was lost that could have helped paint a completely different picture of history!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi InvisibleJenn,

      I looked at this book and I can certainly see why you see similarities. Whether it's connected to the Celts or is much older is tough to say right now. For my money I'd say it's much older, but that's just my gut feeling.

      One culture wiping out previous cultures seems to be the historical norm. In fact, we see the same thing happening with ISIL destroying ancient ruins of cultures they consider beneath them right now. It's a tragedy, but is part of the human condition that sadly isn't likely to ever change.

      Delete
    2. Well, the Celts in Scotland fled that region, for reasons not fully known, in around 600 to 700 AD. Most were known to have fled to Ireland. They then returned to Scotland around 900 AD. My dates are only approximate as I am relying on memory here of things I learned during my trip to Scotland in 1996. 20 years ago now!
      My point being, the Romans were unsuccessful at driving the Celtic people out of Britain hence they built Hadrian's wall to keep the Celts in Scotland. But then for reasons not understood there was a mass exodus of these people in the 600 to 700 AD time range. Could it be possible that some fled beyond Ireland into North America? I wouldn't consider it inconceivable. Whatever would have caused these people to flee their homeland could have possibly pushed them beyond Ireland. So much of that time in history has been lost, or hidden. And sadly, we may never find the answers to the mysteries left for us.

      Delete
  115. Is Marion Dahm still living? If yes, how recently has he been toalked to, and if no, are his materials available for study?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rocky,

      Marion died a few years ago and I believe his papers ended up that Kensington Area Heritage Society, but I'm not sure. I'll check into that. Thanks.

      Delete