Oak Island 1179 Map

Last night on the season opening episode of History's "Oak Island" they showed an interesting map of what purports to be Nova Scotia that is dated in Roman Numbers in the upper right corner to 1179.  The person who brought the map to the production company's attention is a friend named Zena Halpern, who was featured in the show in a phone call.  Zena and I, and this map, go back about 10 years when Zena first brought it to my attention in late 2008.  What I'd like to do in this blog post is make clear a few facts about this map and be open to questions.   

Before going any further, people need to understand this map is clearly a copy drawn on modern paper that at best, likely dates back to the late 1700's.  Keep in mind this is a picture, or a copy, of the original.  It could also be a second or third generation of a copy of the original, we simply don't know.  This will no doubt lead skeptics to dismiss the map and it's obvious connection to the Knights Templar having been in North America over three hundred years before Columbus.

What first caught my attention were the two Hooked X's that appear on the map; one in the third X (Roman number 10) in the date in the upper right hand corner, and in the number 45 (XLV) just above the word "Nord" (North) on the center, right side of the map.  The important thing is these two Hooked X's on the map appeared before I published my book, The Hooked X: Key to the Secret History of North America, in 2009.  Prior to this, no one could have known of the direct connection I made of this symbol to the Knights Templar.  In the book, I proposed the Kensington Rune Stone, with 22 Hooked X's, was a land claim placed by a party of Knights Templar traveling with a least one highly initiated Cistercian monk who likely authored the inscription.  The presence of these two Hooked X's on this map, three years before my book was published, is powerful evidence consistent with a connection to the Templar's.

Another prominent feature of the map are numerous vertical lines, with Roman Numbers, that appear to indicate longitude.  Skeptics are sure to complain that longitude was unknown in 1179 and argue it can't be an authentic map.  I maintain the opposite could be true and the map appears to indicate that longitude was indeed known and was likely was part of secret knowledge known by the Templar's. 

Zena graciously allowed me to publish part of this map in my latest book, Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers: The Mysteries of the Hooked X.  Now that the complete map has been published on the show there is a lot more to talk about.  You can be sure the Lagina brothers, and Zena, will have more to say on upcoming episodes of the show.  There will also be more about Zena's research in her forthcoming book which should be published in the next six months.    

Henrik Williams Still Doesn't Want To Get It

On November 1st, Swedish of Runology, Professor Henrik Williams, gave a presentation at the Minnesota History Center about Scandinavian Rune Stones and devoted a half hour or so to the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS).  As usual Professor Williams was noncommittal when asked by the audience about its authenticity.  He responded by saying he was 70/30 it was probably a hoax.  He then laid out a series of reasons that he believed supported its likely modern origin which were as follows:

1.There are no other rune stones in Europe that are like it.

2. There are no other messages like it on rune stones in Europe.

3. It's possible that relatives of Edward Larsson could have carved the inscription as they immigrated from the Dalcarlian region of Northern Sweden which has runes similar to the Kensington Rune Stone alphabet.

4. He believed it was likely the carver was inspired by the Chicago World's Fair "Vikings" Expedition of 1893.

To say this is weak evidence to support his opinion would be an understatement.  First, that there are no other rune stones like it is not evidence to support a modern origin.  Further, the same is true about his second reason.  The Kensington inscription and manuscript style of the message absolutely are unique and therefore, all the more rare and important.  To try to use these claims as evidence of forgery certainly isn't a scientific way of thinking at all and reeks of an agenda.  You'd think a one-of-a-kind medieval runic text would present an exciting opportunity to learn which a more clear thinking scholar would jump at.

Even a quick scan at the comparative table below that lists the Kensington and Dalacarlian runes proves Williams' third reason is sheer fantasy and begs the question why he would say something that he already knows isn't true?

Lastly, speculating that the 1893 World's Fair Exhibition somehow inspired a forger is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.  It also begs the question, why would somebody inspired by a "Viking" exhibition carve a stone with medieval runes instead of Viking Age runes? 

None of the reasons listed meet the bar as factual evidence against the stone, so why does Williams continue to say the Kensington Stone is probably a hoax when he knows it's 100% authentic?  This raises other questions as well.  Why does Williams continue to marginalize and ignore the geological weathering work myself and Newton H. Winchell performed on the artifact, work he is not qualified to comment on yet still does, that proved the Kensington Rune Stone is a medieval artifact?  Why does he continue to ignore the voluminous examples of the Hooked X, something he says is modern, in Icelandic manuscripts dating back several hundred years?  And why would he continue to ask for donations to pay for him to come to the United States and talk about all the "fake" rune stones we supposedly have here?  Does he really think we're that dumb?  Apparently so. 

The truth of the matter with the KRS inscription is it's a Templar/Masonic document that has nothing at all to do with the tradition of rune stones in Scandinavia.  Until Williams and the rest of the runologists stop trying to frame the discussion by trying to tell the KRS what it should be, instead of letting it tell them what it is, they have no chance of figuring it out.

I will give him credit for one thing.  That he hasn't completely closed the door on the authenticity is very telling.  After having worked with him for 5 years I know that he knows it's real, and by leaving open the possibility it could be genuine gives him plausible deniability should new evidence comes forward that even he can no longer explain away.  That new evidence is coming soon. Until it does, it's time for the History Center and the American Swedish Institute to wake up and hold this guy, and his personal representative, Loraine Jensen, accountable for their words and actions.  For those who missed it, I would ask you to read my February, 2016, blog posting where I detail the academic fraud Professor Williams, and the late Richard Nielsen, committed with the Kensington Rune Stone inscription.  It's a pretty good read and generated lots of discussion.  What do you think about all of this?      

 

On page 91 of my book, "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence", a table created by my now deceased co-author, Richard Nielsen, and peer reviewed by Professor Henrik Williams, has caption that says, "...the Kensington Rune Stone alphabet did not originate in Dalacarlia."