Friday, February 9, 2018

A New Medieval Runic Inscription in North America?

Just this week, I had the privilege to examine yet another, previously unknown runic inscription here in North America.  It is a very short inscription and only had a short time to spend with it, but what I saw during my visit was very interesting indeed!  The short, three-rune inscription was carved into a large glacial erratic boulder of granite gneiss that had a very flat top surface providing a perfect substrate to carve on.  These runes are the largest I've ever seen at approximately six inches in height.  The three runes are well carved and easily read as a bilateral "n" (Meaning the angled bar in the center appears equally on both sides of the vertical line called a "stave."), an open looped "r" (Meaning the lower line of the upper loop angling back to the middle does not touch the vertical stave), and a so-called "thorn" rune.  One other interesting aspect of the "r" rune is the line angling to the lower right forming the top loop does extend and meet the top of the vertical stave.  This is the first time I have ever seen an "r" rune like this after reviewing hundreds of Scandinavian and North American runic inscriptions. 

Putting all the runes together, the inscription appears to spell "Nrth."  However, I will let the runological experts make the call on this one as it is not appropriate for me to portray myself as an expert in this field.  I know enough about runes to be dangerous, but I want to make it clear I am not a qualified expert.  What I am an expert on is commenting on how the runes were carved into rock as hard as granite, which was clearly using metal tools, as I have carved and painted my own rune stone into a granite gneiss boulder myself.

As I carefully examined the carvings, I was shocked to see something I never expected.  At the end of the lower right leg of the "r" rune was an intentionally made, large hole or dot, exactly like the one on line one, in the word "göter", on the Kensington Rune Stone!  This particular anomaly in the KRS inscription was interpreted by Richard Nielsen and myself, to be part of what we called a "Grail Code."  This was because the first four runes that were singled out by the carver on the KRS, with either dots or short strokes, in sequence, spelled, "GRAL" or "Grail."  Whether there is any connection to the KRS, or the Templars/Cistercians who created it, is unknown.

Lastly, I have to say that the carvings did look weathered, but it was a very brief look and it could, in fact, be recently made.  I am reticent to offer any age for the inscription until I am able to spend more time studying it to see if there is a scientific way to determine a relative age.  This is also the reason I am not going to reveal its location to ensure the inscription is not altered in any way by potential vandalism.  Having said that, I would entertain inquires from legitimate scholars that might be interested in seeing the inscription as more work definitely needs to be done.


On February 6, 2018, I had the opportunity to examine a brand new, three-character, runic inscription carved into a large glacial boulder of granite gneiss. 


The three runes that make up the inscription are a bilateral "n", an open looped "r", and a very well carved "thorn" rune, which typically when found at the end of a word typically represents the "th" sound.



This picture was taken at an angle to the inscription that highlights a deep hole the carver made at the end of the lower right leg of the "r" rune.  This feature is exactly the same as the dot the carver made in the same location in the first "r" rune in the word "göter", on line one, in the Kensington Rune Stone inscription. 


There is a clear and distinct intentionally made dot at the end of the lower right leg of the "r" rune in the word "göter", on line one of the Kensington Rune Stone inscription.


A closer view of the man-made dot at the end of the lower right leg of the "r" rune, in the word "göter", on line one of the Kensington Rune Stone inscription.


In May of 2005, it took 40 hours to carve this rune stone commemorating the book I co-authored with Richard Nielsen entitled, "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence."  

The following photos of the most recent renditions of the ever-evolving translation of the Kensington Rune Stone are posted here in response to a troll's attempt to undermine the legitimacy of numerous intentional punch marks and short strokes added to numerous runes AFTER the inscription was carved.  The troll attempted to post a hastily written, angry rebuttal letter by a scholar who tried to use his perceived authority to play fast and loose with man-made features added by the carver.  This letter came on the heels of a paper I wrote on my microscopic 3D imaging work that documented these features whose impact on the authenticity of the KRS was vitally important.  You can read my paper at the following link:  http://kensingtonrunestone.us/html/rune_stone_3-d_study.html 

What is important to notice here is both Henrik Williams and Richard Nielsen peer-reviewed and endorsed the Dotted R and several of the other dots and short lines as intentional and meaningful aspects of the inscription Nielsen and I published in our 2006 book, The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence.  In some cases they served linguistic purposes, in others they were part of various codes, all reviewed and accepted by both scholars.  However, in 2007, the pair suddenly reversed course and decided the modifications were not the important features we had already published.  The new interpretation was they were "guide marks", "decorations", or in the case of the vitally important Dotted R on line 6, was the result of a "dropped tool mark."  I'm still amazed at how the clumsy carver was skilled enough to accidentally drop his chisel so the point just magically hit the perfect spot to create a dot that proves the authenticity of the KRS all by itself.  What are the odds...?    

The point of posting the two translations is to show how the two scholars played fast and loose with the physical features on the inscription.  In 2010, in the word "death" on line 8, they published two dots in the "thorn" runes and I'm convinced the second dotted "thorn" was going to be the big discovery they planned to make.  Unfortunately, Nielsen was denied access and Williams, reportedly, threw a fit.  Later that evening during his lecture at the Alexandria Community College, we all heard a clearly agitated Williams complain about their treatment at the museum.  I suspect because their plans to discover the Dotted "thorn" together were foiled by the museum, they apparently decided to make the dots in both the Dotted R, and the Dotted "thorn", go away.   This is evidenced by the 2014 translation as seen below.  

The problem with all of this is here we have two scholars, apparently, trying to play with physical aspects of the inscription to serve an agenda.  They certainly have the right to change their mind about interpretations of what these man-made features represent, as long as they provide proper evidence to justify and support the new opinions.  However, they cannot decide what are man-made physical features on the stone and what are not.  It is inappropriate and unethical.  

Sadly, Richard Nielsen passed away in July of 2016, and can no longer comment on the information I have presented.  However, I invite Professor Williams to defend his and Nielsen's actions by responding to my comments on this blog with facts I may not aware of, but I would not hold my breath he will do.  In the end, this type of behavior by scholars hurts not just the Kensington Rune Stone, but all of us who simply want to know the truth.     


This translation of the Kensington Rune Stone inscription was published by Henrik Williams and Richard Nielsen in 2010.


A close-up view of line eight shows a two dotted "thorn" runes in the word "death."


This translation of the Kensington Rune Stone inscription was published by Henrik Williams and Richard Nielsen in 2014.


A close-up view of line eight shows the once present dotted "thorn" runes in the word "death" have been removed.








57 comments:

  1. Scott do you anticipate you will observe it again and make a reccomendation on the age? Certainly looks weathered, but sometimes looks can be deceiving. Ill be looking forward to you spending more time so as to authenticate it or call it a hoax.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bryan,

      Yes, I will definitely go back in the near future with microscopic equipment to try and make some determination about its relative age. One thing I learned a long time ago is the "open" "r" rune is consistent with medieval practice as found on the Kensington and Spirit Pond Rune Stones which are self-dated to 1362, 1401 and 1402. One interesting difference with this inscription is the "a" rune is typical of Viking thru medieval runic practice and not a Hooked X as used by the Knights Templar and Cistercians.

      Even within this very short inscription there is a lot to consider.

      Delete
  2. Are you aware that My House, specifically Preserves the Memory, and the Prophecy... Of our ancient Mother, who left her husband, and joined with the White Knight... Eventually, she through the ages, became White Herself... The True White Brother.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,

      Are you speaking of a literal intermarriage or an allegorical one?

      Delete
    2. Scott.... Have you looked into the sky for the hooked x ??..... Have you looked on a flat map of all the templer an Mason sites for the hooked x ??

      Delete
    3. Anonymous,

      At some point it seems all symbols, legends and ancient knowledge goes back to the heavens. So it's very likely the origin of the Hooked X has something to do with the constellations.

      There indeed are more Hooked X's on Templar maps and other documents the world has yet to see. Stay tuned...

      Delete
  3. ARTH...Could it be EARTH???

    If so, where are fire, water, air, and spirit???

    A. W.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A.W.,

      Interesting thought. Next trip I will spend time looking around for more. I saw several other carvings at this location, but have not shared them as yet. I want to study them before making them public.

      Delete
  4. Hello Scott. Extremely interesting as usual. I was wondering if you could give a generalized idea if the location? I'm just curious if this is in the Northeastern part of North America? Maybe New England? Or an entirely new location?
    Thanks
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike,

      I really don't want to give anything away at this time as I promised the ones who shared it with me that courtesy. I'm especially careful now after some of the Native American petroglyphs in the Upper Peninsula were destroyed within a couple of months after airing of one of our shows. All it takes is one idiot and all we said were the glyphs were in the U.P. What I can tell you is the location makes sense for runes, and other carvings, to be there.

      The location will be revealed in due time. I appreciate your understanding.

      Delete
  5. FYI: In November of 2016 I attend two lectures by Prof. Henrik Williams. In his PowerPoint presentation. He now added (hut) to shelter. The fits perfectly to a small hunting wigwam.
    I have made several new discoveries about the KRS & The 1362 Expedition. In July of 2017 I emailed Professor Williams and Loraine Jensen. Both were interested in my work and wanted to read more about it. Mailing both a package of some of my years of research work. That was in August of 2017. I guess people in Academia must be swamped with work because they have not gotten back to me. Maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned The Runestone Museum. I didn’t discover Darwin Ohman’s article until a few weeks ago. Thanks for all the work you have done on the KRS. Wayne Gorian, Crystal, MN WGorian@America1362.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wayne,

      The truth is neither Williams or his agent Jensen have anything new to offer and have said all they can say about the inscription. Yet they continue to try and make themselves relevant which seems odd since their stance on the KRS is that it is most likely a forgery. If so, then why do they continue to obsess and spend so much time with it?

      They also have no time for anyone else's thoughts except their own since he is considered the world expert on runes; how could anyone lesser have anything to offer? This is typical of how academia operates so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.

      There is a lot more to come, but if you haven't read my "Ritual Code on the Kensington Rune Stone" paper, you should. Here is the link to my blog post with my initial thoughts about the discovery: https://scottwolteranswers.blogspot.com/2016/07/kensington-rune-stone-inscription.html

      In my humble opinion, this is the most important discovery made related to KRS inscription since the publishing of "Compelling New Evidence" in 2006. This explains the remaining questions regarding the inscription and explains why academics have struggled so mightily with the inscription for 120 years now.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous,

      We'll miss ya...

      Delete
  6. Hi Scott, it looks to me like the first rune may be a "Naudhiz," with a shortened side of the X, rather than a "Gebo," or regular X. If so, as individual runes, the meaning might be construed as meaning this interpretation. (I took the individual rune meanings and extrapolated them out into a brief storyline to possibly fit the occasion):

    "We had this need, this unfulfilled desire with the land here (from the Naudhiz rune). We worked and experienced movement and growth (from the Raidho rune), but in the end, there was too much danger and suffering (from the Thurisoz rune).

    I hope this might help in some way. I'm curious to learn more about the site, and about your findings in regard to approximate aging.

    - Gunn (Bob Voyles)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Scott!

    Do the Native Americans that occupied that land have any similar writings? Possibly have been learned from the new settlers such as the Mickmaw (sp?) in Nova Scotia adopting the flag of the Knights Templar?

    Moises

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Moises,

      Native Americans absolutely carved petroglyphs in stone and have been doing for tens of thousands of years all around the world. However, I don't believe these runes have anything to do with the indigenous people. These are classic Scandinavian runes that suggest a medieval time period IF they are old. There is more work to be done, but even a short inscription like this has potentially big consequences.

      Delete
  8. Scott, this looks like NRTH to me, not ARTH.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are absolutely right; that is an "n" rune. My mistake. I went a head and changed the write-up where appropriate. Looks like I did say it spelled, "Nrth" but I had the rune wrong as an "a" when it's clearly an "n." This begs the question if the word is a directional indicator possibly telling an exploration party to travel north?

      Good eye!

      Delete
    2. That was exactly my thought. The good news is that you may have more to discover yet.

      Delete
  9. Scott looks like you got the last rune wrong as well. I read that as a D rune not a th, Seems to be a d all through the translation of the KRS. Also I see the first rune as an E, spelling erd

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Anonymous; wrong on both accounts. The first rune is clearly an “n” and a “thorn” rune at the end of a word is a “th” sound as in “eath”, like “breath.” The best example of the “th” rune at the end of a word on the KRS is on line eight with “death” that is spelled “thorn”, “e”, “thorn.” However, a "thorn" in the front part of a word is a "d" sound which this clearly is not.

      The word on the newly discovered inscription is indeed “Nrth.”

      Delete
    2. Anonymous,

      I thought you were leaving and never coming back? In any case, the rules here haven't changed. Convince me of your true identity and only then will your snide comments be heard. At least you agree the word is "death" on line 8; good for you.

      Delete
    3. Mr./Ms. Anonymous,

      I think you’re a bit caught up in believing that languages like to follow rules. They don’t. The thorn split over time into “D” and “TH” because of pronunciation.

      Because we no longer have the thorn, a choice has to be made on how you interpret the symbol. That choice is based, basically, on pronunciation.

      The Old English word for “north” is “norᚦ”. Most likely this is contemporaneous, or close, with the inscription, so if you so choose you can stick with this transliteration.

      Because you provided no reasoning, I can only guess at why you think the first letter is an “E”. This is a single widely sloping stroke, unmistakably an “N”.

      Delete
    4. Jay,

      Mr. Anonymous isn't interested in a serious discussion. He is a troll who doesn't believe the KRS is authentic and simply tries to poke holes just for fun. If he were a serious person he'd properly identify himself.

      You are quite right about the evolution of the "thorn" rune over time, especially in late medieval times. This is what I learned from the two top runic experts in the early 2000's when I worked closely with Richard Nielsen and Henrik Williams. One look at the word "death" on line 8 in both translations (pictures above) these two experts published in 2010 and 2014 shows the point you made to be true.

      Mr. Anonymous pointed out other words in the KRS inscription ending with the "thorn" rune where it is used for "d." However, on the KRS this is not a hard and fast rule since we clearly see the "thorn" rune at the end of words being used both ways.

      This answer should be enough to satisfy any reasonable person, but being the troll that he/she is it probably won't. Regardless, he knows the rules if he wants a productive exchange.

      Delete
  10. You must have me confused with someone else.
    There was nothing snide in my comment. I simply pointed out your error. You again refuse to publish a comment that demonstrated you being wrong.
    You challenge people to discuss things on your blog, refuse to converse anywhere else and then censure the responses if they show you to be in error.
    You are a coward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      On the contrary, I immediately admitted my error about the “n” rune to Jay Polka, who had the courtesy, and integrity, of properly identifying himself.

      You on the other hand, continue to hide in the shadows throwing arrows and insults trying to play "gotcha’" at every turn. I am more than willing to admit my mistakes and have meaningful dialogue with anyone who has the decency to put their name behind their words.

      Until you grow a spine and start throw arrows in the light, I’m afraid it is you who is the gutless coward.

      Delete
  11. How do you know Jay Polka is his real name?

    - Slim Whitman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Slim",

      Because he posted a reasonable and respectfully worded comment which you have not demonstrated the ability to do. Further, he provided a user photo but in the end, it’s my call.

      I thought you were leaving and not coming back?

      Delete
    2. When did I say I was leaving? That's one thing I NEVER say.

      What exactly was unreasonable or not respectfully worded about "How do you know Jay Polka is his real name?" Clearly this is your site and you don't care how you come across but "hyper-sensitive and prickly" about sums it up, unless someone's agreeing with you.

      - Slim

      Delete
    3. Anonymous,

      Look, I’ve said it a hundred times. If you don’t identify yourself properly I reserve the right to not post what I deem to be unproductive or nasty posts. Your name isn’t Slim, and if your intentions are pure there is no reason for you not to use your true identity. You don’t because you’re trying to hide. What you interpret as 'hyper-sensitive and prickly' is my not putting up with non-serious, incessant "Troll" behavior, such as playing a never ending game of “gotcha.”

      Nothing more, nothing less. So post as yourself if you want a fruitful discussion, acknowledge a legitimate point when it's made, and stop being a dick.

      Delete
  12. Hey Scott I was a fan of ur America unearthed show and on it I remember seeing u do a hand signal of the hooked X symbol. It imdeatly made me think of the mummies position of the arms w on holding the scepter. I also remember the president of the masons accompanied the obelisk from Egypt to DC finding the scribe and square under it . my question is dose the modern masons hooked x have origins in Egyptian history and if so what. On a side note there is a grave sight of an eccentric wwwevet bordering land homesteaded by my family here in central is if I got pictures to u could u give me some info on it. Than bud and keep up the good work

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joel,

      The origins of the Hooked X run through Jerusalem, back to Egypt and beyond. It's an ancient symbol emblematic of an ideology embraced by the Egyptians and passed onto, among others, the Cistercians and their military brethren, the Knights Templar.

      You can certainly send photos at my email: swolter@amengtest.com

      Delete
  13. Scott,

    Is anyone aware of the apparent connection between Runes and soapstone seals from the Indus Valley Civilization. I've come across pictures of a few examples of Runes and what's either an ING Rune, or two overlapping compasses on a Goddess statue. I'm thinking they've similar meanings. I need to learn more about Runes before commenting further.


    Anthony Warren

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anthony,

      I haven't looked into the Indus seals, but wouldn't be surprised if there was an older president from the east. Let us know what you find.

      Delete
    2. Hi Anthony,

      One idea you might consider is Hebrew or even Proto-Semitic as an intermediate script.

      If there is a connection, it’s might not be one-to-one. The similarities could be more of a clue than the answer.

      Delete
  14. I'm glad, I came across a copy of a book, I read in my youth. Most of the mysteries presented have since been solved. The best part is the pictures of Indus Valley Civilization soapstone seals with Runic similarities, and hardest to wrap my mind around, the Goddess statue with the ING Rune, or two overlapping compasses. One of the Runes picyured is also on the Narragansett Bay Stone!

    I'll need to find more examples before any definitive pattern emerges. I'm thinking they may be related to Hittite which turned out to be English.

    I love all of the ancient connections which begin to reemerge in Templar History.

    Anthony Warren

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Scott
    I was just curious to know how these ruins tie in with old futhark?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bezarley,

      The first and third runes are found in both the old and medieval futharks. The open "r" is more medieval and the dot at the bottom right leg is only found the on the KRS dated 1362.

      Good question.

      Delete
  16. Scott,

    Will you be doing another show or follow up for America Unearthed? My wife and I are huge fans and sceptical to all the historical suppression in the US.

    -Kevin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kevin,

      I'm confident we will be doing more television. Especially, considering the current research I'm working on involves the best story I've ever worked on. Stay tuned...

      Delete
  17. From above: Hi Scott, it looks to me like the first rune may be a "Naudhiz,"....

    You can see that I identified the "n" rune more than a week before Jay came up with "nrth," even though I then used it for an "individual-rune-meaning" storyline. It does seem as though the inscription may be telling other travelers to go north from that point. I wonder what's north from that site...and how far, if this is what the message intended?

    But, my purpose for visiting today is to see what you might think of one particular word translated into many possible meanings since over a hundred years ago. There seems to be a lot of confusion over this word, and especially over the use of one rune in the word (the 3rd of 5 runes). I'm referring to the runic expression that Hjalmar R. Holand translated as "skerries," meaning small rocky islands. For this, he turned the rune in question into a "j". As you know, this has been interpreted to mean skjar, skylar, skelar, skLar and I believe even a similar word using that rune as a character in the translation.

    The longest-held version seems to be Holand's original translation. It just seems odd to me that the meaning of this word is so obscure, today, yet it was so easily translated over a hundred years ago. Everyone seems to have a different opinion over what this word should be in its English translation form. At around 2001, I believe, Nielson translated this to mean "we had traps by two shelters." At first I thought he was talking about fish traps, but maybe (in this translation) he was referring to the traps one uses to catch fur-bearing creatures.

    Of course, I like Holand's "skerries" translation the best, since I believe I have located the elusive Lake With Two Skerries...that being Davidson Lake, off the Chippewa River, where the Erdahl Axe was found in 1894. From the west bank of this lake, one can even today look out and see the topography remembered by the KRS's inscriber...if this is what the interpretation of that Scandinavian word is supposed to mean.

    Holand just barely missed putting the Erdahl Axe together with Davidson Lake because he was badly hooked into the Knutson search party scenerio. He went to visit the site, but didn't put the two together because he was fixated in wrong places. But, he did say that if this campsite a day's journey north of Runestone Hill were to be found, it would go a long ways towards authenticating the inscription on the KRS--and the KRS itself.

    Basically, I used Holand's accurate description of the finding place of the Erdahl Axe and combined that with plat-work connected to the site over the years, along with aerial views (google-earth), to pinpoint the finding place of the ax, and to see that this lake does indeed have two skerries. (However, I think the larger skerrie with a weak center was actually two skerries back in 1362 with the lake level being a bit higher; this would also cover over the 2nd, smaller, skerrie on the lake today.)

    Anyway, I hope you or someone else might be able to shed some light on what may be the proper use of this 3rd rune, which Holand translated as a "j" in the word "skjar." Also, how did he then so easily translate this word skjar into skerries?

    In the last version of Henrik Williams' translation (2014?), he seems to have pretty much given up on trying to grasp a meaning from this rune and the word's meaning. In my mind, there seems to be a lot riding on the intended use and meaning of this one rune. I know, Scott, you tend to disregard much of the KRS's message because of matching up numbers, but I would nevertheless like to consider your opinions about this elusive rune, and word, and the unintended consequences. Thanks for the indulgence.

    Bob Voyles, aka Gunn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob,

      Nielsen and I explained the enigmatic third rune to be an "l" with a very short horizontal bar in the main stave as a tip-off to the Dating Code (a confirmation of the date of 1362). It is NOT an "el" or "le" bind-rune as the words created don't make sense and there are no others in the inscription. This leaves the word to be "sklar." Recently, Patrick Shekleton threw out the possibility it actually is not a word, but rather a name. We are looking into that possibility. If so, it would explain why the word has been so confusing to scholars for the past 120 years.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Scott. I thought maybe you were away or out in the field somewhere. Can't wait for Spring!

      I see by the copy of the 2014 translation that Williams has said they don't know what the rune in question means. This makes me wonder why he doesn't see the short horizontal bar as a tip-off to the Dating Code, as you and others see it. I think yours is an acceptable answer to why people are misconstruing it as anything but a simple "L".

      With Holand, I believe he associated his proposed "j" with sound or pronunciation, which is how he came up with "skjar." He then translated this into "skerries."

      I didn't think the rune we are talking about is a bindrune incorporating an "e", either, because the short horizontal bar is not diagonal...so that the runes wouldn't overlap properly to be a bindrune.

      I'm glad you reminded me about the Dating Code, since this seems to be the most logical explanation for the mystery over this rune. I'm surprised Williams doesn't see it. I can see where the translation of "skerries" could be a threat to him, since that would indicate that the KRS storyline could be true--based on the fact that the Erdahl Axe was found next to a pool of springwater on the slightly elevated west bank of Davidson Lake, off the Chippewa River, about an actual day's travel north from Runestone Hill.

      Ultimately, I hope your proposed new findings and information might be able to absorb the circumstances of the finding of the Erdahl Axe, which was found in 1894 a foot and a half deep under a stump over two feet across. I wish this axe could be re-located so it could undergo further study.

      Anyway, thanks for your response...it has helped me to understand the mystery of that "L" rune better. I'm still a bit perplexed about why Holand's use of "j" and his translation as "skerries" isn't as acceptable now as it has been for over a hundred years. For now, mainly because of the Erdahl Axe and its likely association with the ill-fated camp by Davidson Lake, I will go along with Holand's original translation.

      With what you said about the Dating Code and with Holand's explanation about using "j" instead of "L", I'm still fairly comfortable with the word intended by the inscriber to be "skerries." Of course, I'm always curious enough to ponder other theories. Thanks again.

      - Bob

      Delete
  18. Hi Scott ,

    I had some questions to ask you as well , but in a nutshell i sent you this link which i thought you may find interesting.

    https://www.livescience.com/61937-lost-viking-settlement-search.html

    Kind regards,

    J.W

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J.W.,

      I'm happy to try and answer your questions; fire away.

      Delete
  19. J.W,

    In that link you posted, regardless of what you think of Wallace’s research, notice she states finding the site through contextual archaeological evidence....

    Regards,

    D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. D,

      I know Brigitta Wallace personally and she did great work at L'Ance aux Meadows. However, Chapter 29 in "North Atlantic Saga" that she wrote with William Fitzhugh was filled with factual errors caused by negative bias that drips our of every pore. It's flat out garbage and she should be ashamed to have her name on it. She knew exactly what she was doing which is my view, makes it even worse.

      Delete
  20. Scott

    Love the work you are doing and waiting for your new adventure to hit the air but I wanted to go off topic and ask your thoughts about the Lagina Bros. recent discoveries on Oak Island. I know you had previously stated your thoughts on the show but wanted to know if you are intrigued with recent finds or not. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      I'll keep it short, I don't think much of the recent finds at all.

      Delete
  21. "Native Americans absolutely carved petroglyphs in stone and have been doing for tens of thousands of years all around the world."

    Huh what?

    Jim. W

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim,

      Yep, that's a true statement. This probably comes as news to many people, but it's true.

      Delete
  22. Scott,
    If I say that the Chrognostic Foundation in 2006-2007 actually uncovered a portion of the nave on the Newport Tower, would you call me a fringe-fringe-researcher. Why is it that academia never followed up on that group's excavation findings - not even acknowledging the potential of what they uncovered? What if the hard evidence of the Newport Tower being a Medieval Era church has actually been known for over a decade now...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patrick,

      You are a fringe researcher; welcome to the club! In fact, the Chronognostic Foundation uncovered exactly that, their 2008 salvage archaeological dig you refer to was supervised by Steve Volukas,and his team discovered the remnants of two wooden posts holes both at approximately 16 feet from the base of the nearest stone and mortar columns. That dig took place within a span of only a few days when the asphalt walkway around the tower was replaced with concrete. You wanna' bet a tall cold one when the day comes when the remaining areas under the sidewalk are excavated six more post hole will be discovered. Of course the tower originally had a nave. One only has to do an internet search of Cambridge Round Church to see what the tower looked like in the 15th/16th Century. See page 44 of my Akhenaten book for more details about this dig.

      It's interesting there has been a collective silence by academics about these features for the past decade that shed important light on the structure that when combined with the obvious architecture points to only one group, but its hardly surprising. Scholars have bet the house on a colonial origin and when you have no cards in your hand the best you can do is keep your mouth shut, bluff, and hope the other side folds and goes home. Nobody is going home on this side when the evidence is screaming out loud the Newport Tower is not only a church/chapel, but an observatory and much, much more.

      Those embracing the medieval Templar thesis now have a hand full of aces and are about to play their hand.

      Delete
    2. Patrick,

      I believe academia may have never followed up on the two post holes because they are exactly that, two post holes. In all of the archaeological excavations ever undertaken at Newport Tower, no artifacts have ever been found that indicate a previous medieval-era church. All of the archaeological evidence suggests historical/colonial occupation. If there is no contextual material culture to associate the site to a medieval occupation, then the post holes are likely associated with the historical/colonial period.

      Regards,

      D

      Delete
    3. D,

      You may want to bring your comment to the most recent post where Pat will see it.

      Delete
  23. Scott-

    Do you know anything about the Runic Inscriptions described by-
    Dr. Henrick Nissen. Mentioned in "Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society" volume XV May 1912 page 232 - Book -Digitized by Archive.org at this site?-

    https://archive.org/stream/collections15minnuoft#page/232/mode/2up/search/fort+george

    The inscriptions are near the old Fort George, Hudson Bay, Canada.

    I like the map on page 221 plate III

    p@

    ReplyDelete
  24. Pasadena,

    I remember looking into that inscription with Dick Nielsen many years ago, but I don't think we ever found an image of it to examine. Not sure what to think, but if a picture or drawing exists I'd sure like to see it.

    ReplyDelete