(some) Old Templars do not die: they simply fade away.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
t(nospam)kavanagh
Re: (some) Old Templars do not die: they simply fade away.
> See http://www.templarhistory.com/portugal.html
Unfortunately, you seem to have this backwards; they haven't faded away,
lo these many centuries, as they should have.
tk
t(nospam)kavanagh
Why are we even thinking that the Templars have survived?
tk
Daryl Krupa
It's a form of Spam.
IE J
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:v0hqu154d45m8af05...@4ax.com...
> See http://www.templarhistory.com/portugal.html
I guess it's time to point to the double contacts with the Danish-Swedish
Royal Family which were the reason for the joint Danish-Portugesean voyage
who had Pothurst and Pinning as Captains on two of the ships and at least
Columbus' brother and navigator on board in 1477/78...
http://www.thornr.demon.co.uk/kchrist/portdan.html
it all started back in 12th century but the real important part happened in
early 1400's. Btw the Vinland-map if it's the same as the 1434 map was in
it's North America-Greenland-Island-Scandinavia parts drawn from the
Claudius Clavus map who in it's turn were from Nicholas of Thingeyre's map.
The Nicholas some here still haven't understood were in Rome in 20 years
before the Nicholas they believe to have been him....
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Eric Stevens
Before you succumbed to the sin of top posting, did you read as far
as:
"From the time of Manuel I, the Mastership remained in the hands of
the Portuguese Monarchy. During this period the Knights of Christ
remained essentially a religious and military order, very similar
the order of the Temple that had been its inspiration and mentor.
This state of affairs continued up until the reign of Queen Maria,
who secularized the order in 1789. This once strong military
order, which financed and supported so many new discoveries,
ultimately became nothing more important than an order of merit
for the Catholic Church."
Note the last sentence.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
> See http://www.templarhistory.com/portugal.html
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Archaeology?
--
p.a.
Alan Crozier
news:43edb841$0$20169$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
Not relevant to archaeology at all. It's about the special case
of Portugal, where the king did not want the properties of the
Templars to be transferred to the Hospitallers after the
suppression of the Templars. King Dinis claimed that the
properties belonged to him personally, that the Templars were
just usufructuaries. So the Pope had to let the king keep his
properties and create a new military order of his own to succeed
the Templars.
Not relevant to the KRS either, although I imagine that Eric is
hinting that something similar may have happened in Scandinavia.
But there is one significant difference: We know that there were
Templars in Portugal. Is there any evidence that there ever were
Templars in Scandinavia?
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Peter Alaca
OK, I Eric want to discuss Templars in this way,
he can do so in soc.history.medieval.
Reposted there.
--
p.a.
prd
news:dsjpes$cpf$2...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu by "t(nospam)kavanagh"
<"tkavanag"@(nospam)indiana.edu> . . . :
> Top posting on myself:
>
> Why are we even thinking that the Templars have survived?
They discovered the fountain of youth? Unfortunately, the illuminati
stole it from them.
prd
news:8gjHf.44395$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net by "Alan Crozier"
<name1...@telia.com> . . . :
Many of the Templar appear to have come from the anglo-germanic
regions, de molay appears to have come from the northern region. In
france and italy they tended to join the hospitaler knights. Portugal
may be the exception. The kings of england and scotland appear to
have been sympathetic to the Templars more so than the french. The
real question is not were there templars in scandinavia, but the fate
of templar in sympathetic and non-sympathetic regions. If you were
from central or southern france your fate was sealed, if you were
from Italy likewise. In the bordering regions some would flee and
others would repent.
The persecution of the Templars after all was the scheme of Philip
the Fair of france, any kingdoms that were not strong allies of PoF
might allow both wealth and individuals to simply blend into the
background.
The problem though is not the issue of templars that went
unrepentant, but the organization. The organization was (or became)
an arm of the HRC under the supervision of the Pope. The pope banned
the organization by papal bull dissolved the organization. At that
point in every nation which was roman catholic at the time the
organization officially ceased to exist. Period.
Derivative organizations or associations may have formed afterward,
however none of these could call themselves Templar under the HRC,
they would have been outlaw organizations if they did. The knights
templar ceased to exist, you cannot be a knight without the sanction
of the church or state, and the states were alligned with the church
and the church banned the organization. Now I am sure Eric will come
in squinking about this and that, some knights retained their titles
by migrating to other organizations (knights templar, etc) but they
would not have been Templar Knights.
The claim of some that a Templar carved the KRS is foolery and
sophistry based on ignorance, simple as that. They can claim that
Templar culture played a hand in the carving, but that is a cart well
ahead of the horse, since there is no known gotlandic culture known
to have existed. There were pagan regions NE of gotland where the
Templars might have fled and pretended to have retained their titles,
again no knowledge either of that. They may have recieved protection
by the Byzantine Empire, how big was that empire in 1314 and when did
it finally collapse? or recieved sanction by some orthodox
organizantion that emerged from the fall of the byzantine empire, but
also no information supporting that. Mostly what we have with the KRS
is a developing mythos based on 'cart before horse' speculation.
nothing more, nothing but squink.
IE J
"Alan Crozier" <name1...@telia.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:8gjHf.44395$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net...
Yes!
Inger E
IE J
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
news:43edc4a3$1$27190$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
but it's also possible to discuss artifacts re. to Templars and one member
of a Scandinavian Royal Family visiting Jerusalem when the Templars first
came there.
Inger E
>
>
> Reposted there.
>
> --
> p.a.
>
Peter Alaca
>> Reposted there.
> but it's also possible to discuss artifacts re. to Templars and one
> member of a Scandinavian Royal Family visiting Jerusalem when the
> Templars first came there.
Sure, but I see no artifacts. Do you?
--
p.a.
IE J
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
If you are referring to Eric's lines. NO
But elsewhere YES. Some discussed long ago, some never discussed and by sure
not read by those who don't take time reading ref. url let-alone checking
the ref presented in those articles.
Inger E
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Not directly but definitely related. This is a follow on to the
discussion of the implications and interpretation of the artifacts
(dotted R etc) described by Nielsen and Wolter in their book.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Dotted Rs, cross Pattee etc.
A. But of course they can't have been carved by the Templars as we all
know the Templars ceased to exist in 1307.
B. But they didn't all cease to exist in 1307. It is suspected (at
least) that they continued in one form or another in many parts of the
world. The URL which started this thread describes the continuance of
the organisation in Portugal. This alone falsifies the claim that the
Templars ceased to exist in their entirety in 1307.
A. Alright the Templars continued in another guise in Portugal but
that is no evidence that they continued anywhere else.
B. Agreed but it does mean that the continuation of the Templars in
the Baltic cannot be bluntly denied. It also means that the post 1307
Templar symbols found in Gotland must be seriously considered as
possible evidence of Templar (offshoot) activity in the region later
than 1307.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Alan Crozier wrote: 8gjHf.44395$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net,
Whose job is it to interpret artifacts if not archaeologists?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
--- snip ----
> The claim of some that a Templar carved the KRS is foolery and
>sophistry based on ignorance, simple as that. They can claim that
>Templar culture played a hand in the carving, but that is a cart well
>ahead of the horse, since there is no known gotlandic culture known
>to have existed.
I'm sure that ought to attract the ire of some who know their
Scandinavian history. As it is, your statement is evidence of both
prejudice and ignorance on your part.
>There were pagan regions NE of gotland where the
>Templars might have fled and pretended to have retained their titles,
>again no knowledge either of that. They may have recieved protection
>by the Byzantine Empire, how big was that empire in 1314 and when did
>it finally collapse? or recieved sanction by some orthodox
>organizantion that emerged from the fall of the byzantine empire, but
>also no information supporting that. Mostly what we have with the KRS
>is a developing mythos based on 'cart before horse' speculation.
>nothing more, nothing but squink.
The idea that the KRS might be genuine really does upset you, doesn't
it?
Eric Stevens
Alan Crozier
news:c6nsu1ls79s78avc1...@4ax.com...
Did the Templars have some sort of copyright on the croix pâtée?
Was it never carved or painted or drawn by anyother Christians?
And there is no evidence of any connection between Templars and
dotted R runes.
>
> A. But of course they can't have been carved by the Templars
as we all
> know the Templars ceased to exist in 1307.
>
> B. But they didn't all cease to exist in 1307. It is suspected
(at
> least) that they continued in one form or another in many
parts of the
> world. The URL which started this thread describes the
continuance of
> the organisation in Portugal. This alone falsifies the claim
that the
> Templars ceased to exist in their entirety in 1307.
>
> A. Alright the Templars continued in another guise in
Portugal but
> that is no evidence that they continued anywhere else.
>
> B. Agreed but it does mean that the continuation of the
Templars in
> the Baltic cannot be bluntly denied. It also means that the
post 1307
> Templar symbols found in Gotland must be seriously considered
as
> possible evidence of Templar (offshoot) activity in the region
later
> than 1307.
If you like that kind of speculation.
Alan Crozier
news:ucqHf.44442$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net...
>
> "Alan Crozier" <name1...@telia.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:8gjHf.44395$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net...
were
> > Templars in Portugal. Is there any evidence that there ever
were
> > Templars in Scandinavia?
>
> Yes!
I mean written, published, verifiable evidence, not speculative
interpretation.
Peter Alaca
You mean you can post off-topic here as long as
you said someting about artifacts in the past?
This thread is off-topic, nothing more.
--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°
Eric Stevens
That's narrowing the range down rather a lot for a news group whose
subject is archaelogy.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<name1...@telia.com> wrote:
Originally it was awarded to the Templars by Pope Eugenius and it was
their particular mark. If a Templar used a cross it _would_ be a cross
patee. I am not aware of any reason why it could not be used by
others.
I would not expect non-Templars to use it prior to 1307 which was the
year when the pope issued a bull against the Templars. Nor would I
expect non-Templars to use it in the years immediately following 1307
when great stigma might be attached to being a Templar. Not that my
expectations have much to do with what might actually have happened.
The least you can say is that if something is marked by a cross patee
then it has the potential to be linked to the Templars in some way. I
would go further and say that in the 14th and even 15th centuries the
use of the cross patee marks a probable Templar connection.
>
>And there is no evidence of any connection between Templars and
>dotted R runes.
But there is a connection between the KRS and artifacts marked with a
cross patee via the dotted R runes.
It's called debate.
Eric Stevens
t(nospam)kavanagh
No, I think it's altogether appropriate for a sci (for science)
archaeology (for archaeology) news group to expect written (we don't
have an audio feed) evidence that, if not already published, is
publishable.
tk
tk
Peter Alaca
> "Alan Crozier" wrote
[...]
>> And there is no evidence of any connection between Templars and
>> dotted R runes.
> But there is a connection between the KRS and artifacts marked
> with a cross patee via the dotted R runes.
Then the relation between the KRS and
the front our old city hall is stronger.
>>> A. But of course they can't have been carved by the Templars
>>> as we all know the Templars ceased to exist in 1307.
>>>
>>> B. But they didn't all cease to exist in 1307. It is suspected (at
>>> least) that they continued in one form or another in many parts
>>> of the world. The URL which started this thread describes the
>>> continuance of the organisation in Portugal. This alone falsifies
>>> the claim that the Templars ceased to exist in their entirety in
>>> 1307.
>>>
>>> A. Alright the Templars continued in another guise in Portugal
>>> but that is no evidence that they continued anywhere else.
>>>
>>> B. Agreed but it does mean that the continuation of the
>>> Templars in the Baltic cannot be bluntly denied. It also means
>>> that the post 1307 Templar symbols found in Gotland must be
>>> seriously considered as possible evidence of Templar
>>> (offshoot) activity in the region later than 1307.
>> If you like that kind of speculation.
> It's called debate.
It's called debating speculation.
Tom McDonald
Well, you do it in your work. Detectives do it in criminal
investigations. Art critics do it. Art historians do it. All
historians do it. The guy down the block did it a couple of years
ago when my village put in a new water line. My auto mechanic did
it when I brought in an old car part I couldn't identify. My
priest did it when we found old boxes of religious stuff. I did
it when a kid brought me a piece of sandstone shaped like an
arrowhead (although, to be fair, I'm pretty sure he made it
himself). My son did it when I saw a new piece of electronics
that looked like one thing, but turned out to be another thing.
I'm a little surprised at this from you, Eric. This is the POV
of those who post here expecting that an archaeology ng is
appropriate for anything old or to do with stuff. It is not.
That rant said, what artifacts are you talking about? The first
post in this thread mentioned none; and AFAICS, the first place
to ask questions about artifacts in this discussion is in a
*history* ng. In this case, history takes the point, not
archaeology. If there is a use for archaeology here, it will come
from a specific question arising from the history.
What specific archaeological(s) question arising from the
history you have mentioned can you point to now? If none now, why
not take this to a history ng and come back here when you have
something appropriate for s.a.?
hyperoglyphe
>
> "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
> news:43ee348f$0$83868$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
>> IE J wrote: hjqHf.44444$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net,
>>
>> > but it's also possible to discuss artifacts re. to Templars and one
>> > member of a Scandinavian Royal Family visiting Jerusalem when the
>> > Templars first came there.
>>
>> Sure, but I see no artifacts. Do you?
>
> If you are referring to Eric's lines. NO
> But elsewhere YES. Some discussed long ago, some never discussed and by
> sure
> not read by those who don't take time reading ref. url let-alone checking
> the ref presented in those articles.
>
Was that the coconut?
D
prd
news:ustHf.44466$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net by "Alan Crozier"
<name1...@telia.com> . . . :
> I mean written, published, verifiable evidence, not speculative
> interpretation.
>
> Alan
Have you forgotten the grey fryers? Inger showed us a barn in some
weirdly named town that had grey fryers inside.
t(nospam)kavanagh
Are you talking about the fish fryers, or the chip monks?
;-)
tk
IE J
So do I.
Inger E
IE J
your lines below show that you never studied what you yourself sent to the
group. You aren't the one to speak of writing OT.
Inger E
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
news:43ee66ef$0$47663$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
Eric Stevens
Well, let's start with that last paragraph. What is archaeology really
about? See
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology
"Archaeology is the study of the past by finding the remains left by
people who lived in the past. Archaeologists try to work out what
the remains mean. These are called "artifacts", and can include old
coins, tools, houses, or even people's garbage."
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/archaeology
"The systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery
and examination of remaining material evidence, such as graves,
buildings, tools, and pottery."
http://www.english-test.net/sat/vocabulary/meanings/329/sat-words.php#archaeology
"the branch of anthropology concerned with the systematic
investigation of the relics of man"
... and many more.
Bearing in mind that this discussion is taking place in the news group
sci.archaeology and, as you well know, in the context of the
interpretation of the KRS and its relationship to 14th and 15th
century artifacts in Gotland it is reasonable to discuss the
interpretation of these various artifacts in this news group. That is
unless you are one of the people who think archaeology stops with the
finding and cataloging of artifacts. Such an attitude reduces
archaeology to mere stamp collecting.
>
> That rant said, what artifacts are you talking about? The first
>post in this thread mentioned none; and AFAICS, the first place
>to ask questions about artifacts in this discussion is in a
>*history* ng. In this case, history takes the point, not
>archaeology. If there is a use for archaeology here, it will come
>from a specific question arising from the history.
The specific question, as you well know, is whether or not the
inscription on the KRS could have anything to do with the claimed 15th
century Templar inscriptions in Gotland. As I am sure you also know
there are a number of people in this news group who want to kill that
line of consideration by arguing that the Templars as an organisation
were shut down - killed dead - in 1307 by a decree of the pope. I
cited the particular URL to show that that particular line of argument
was false.
It follows that those who want to argue that the papal bull of 1307
means that there could be no possible Templar inscriptions in Gotland
(and putatively in Minnesota) are wrong.
>
> What specific archaeological(s) question arising from the
>history you have mentioned can you point to now? If none now, why
>not take this to a history ng and come back here when you have
>something appropriate for s.a.?
I'm bringing it here because it relates to (1) trying "to work out
what the remains mean" and (2) "The systematic study of past human
life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material
evidence" and (3) "the branch of anthropology concerned with the
systematic investigation of the relics of man".
I know that there are good reasons why people are p**d off to high
heaven with some of the claims that have been put forward for the KRS
but that does not mean that it does not warrant serious consideration.
I'm trying to conduct a serious discussion through all the noise and
arm waving.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: o50tu15ru0vmpnl0d...@4ax.com,
> > "Alan Crozier" wrote
>
>[...]
>
>>> And there is no evidence of any connection between Templars and
>>> dotted R runes.
>
>> But there is a connection between the KRS and artifacts marked
>> with a cross patee via the dotted R runes.
>
>Then the relation between the KRS and
>the front our old city hall is stronger.
That's always possible. Of which city is your hall. When was it buit?
Is it in fact a cross patee? Is there a picture of it on the web?
>
>>>> A. But of course they can't have been carved by the Templars
>>>> as we all know the Templars ceased to exist in 1307.
>>>>
>>>> B. But they didn't all cease to exist in 1307. It is suspected (at
>>>> least) that they continued in one form or another in many parts
>>>> of the world. The URL which started this thread describes the
>>>> continuance of the organisation in Portugal. This alone falsifies
>>>> the claim that the Templars ceased to exist in their entirety in
>>>> 1307.
>>>>
>>>> A. Alright the Templars continued in another guise in Portugal
>>>> but that is no evidence that they continued anywhere else.
>>>>
>>>> B. Agreed but it does mean that the continuation of the
>>>> Templars in the Baltic cannot be bluntly denied. It also means
>>>> that the post 1307 Templar symbols found in Gotland must be
>>>> seriously considered as possible evidence of Templar
>>>> (offshoot) activity in the region later than 1307.
>
>>> If you like that kind of speculation.
>
>> It's called debate.
>
>It's called debating speculation.
That's what scholars did for nearly 1500 years.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
That's broader and I can't argue with that. It's the absence of the
"if not already published, is publishable" to which I was taking
exception in Alan's definition. Your definition allows admission of
evidence which has not yet been published.
Apart from that, I understand there is published evidence of Templars
in Scandinavia and I seem to recall reading references to it in this
news group.
Eric Stevens
IE J
"t(nospam)kavanagh" <"tkavanag"@(nospam)indiana.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:dsmf6g$90l$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
tk,
now you are out of your own territory but had you had contacts with some of
the Elderly in at least two of the North American First Nation groups you
would have been told about what happened in that special Grey Friars house.
They been told long ago of details which took me half a year to confirm from
written 1400's documents.
Inger E
IE J
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:d20tu1hn0psq18l4m...@4ax.com...
Well would have hadn't it been that the Old Templars and the Knights of the
Holy Grave had worked together in Jerusalem. BUT since they did work
together and since three of the Knights of the Holy Grave was related to St
Birgitta, one of them her son, one of them her grandfather and one of them
belonging to the Bishop's branch of the Folkunga Dynasty, there might have
been hard to find written evidence.... but it isn't. It's well documented
that Swedish knights of the Holy Grave worked together with the Knights
Templars protecting among other things the valuable artifacts found in
Jerusalem.
Inger E
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
JerryT
IF
http://www.arnmagnusson.se/eng_kungslena.html
THEN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arn_Magnusson
END IF
JerryT
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" skrev
>> IE J wrote:
>>> "Peter Alaca" skrev
>>>> IE J wrote:
>>>>> "Peter Alaca"skrev
>>>>>> Alan Crozier wrote:
>>>>>>> "Peter Alaca" wrote
>>>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>>>> See http://www.templarhistory.com/portugal.html
>>>>>>>> Archaeology?
>>>>>>> Not relevant to archaeology at all. It's about the special case
>>>>>>> of Portugal, where the king did not want the properties of the
>>>>>>> Templars to be transferred to the Hospitallers after the
>>>>>>> suppression of the Templars. King Dinis claimed that the
>>>>>>> properties belonged to him personally, that the Templars were
>>>>>>> just usufructuaries. So the Pope had to let the king keep his
>>>>>>> properties and create a new military order of his own to succeed
>>>>>>> the Templars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not relevant to the KRS either, although I imagine that Eric is
>>>>>>> hinting that something similar may have happened in Scandinavia.
>>>>>>> But there is one significant difference: We know that there were
>>>>>>> Templars in Portugal. Is there any evidence that there ever were
>>>>>>> Templars in Scandinavia?
>>>>>> OK, I Eric want to discuss Templars in this way,
>>>>>> he can do so in soc.history.medieval.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reposted there.
>>>>> but it's also possible to discuss artifacts re. to Templars and
>>>>> one member of a Scandinavian Royal Family visiting Jerusalem when
>>>>> the Templars first came there.
>>>> Sure, but I see no artifacts. Do you?
>>> If you are referring to Eric's lines. NO
>>> But elsewhere YES. Some discussed long ago, some never discussed and
>>> by sure not read by those who don't take time reading ref. url
>>> let-alone checking the ref presented in those articles.
>> You mean you can post off-topic here as long as
>> you said someting about artifacts in the past?
>> This thread is off-topic, nothing more.
> Peter Alaca,
> your lines below [=above now] show that you never studied
> what you yourself sent to the group. You aren't the one to
> speak of writing OT.
Answering questions with insults again.
--
p.a.
Peter Alaca
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>>>> Alan Crozier wrote:
>>>>> "Peter Alaca" wrote
>>>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>> See http://www.templarhistory.com/portugal.html
>>>>>> Archaeology?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not relevant to archaeology at all. It's about the special case
>>>>> of Portugal, where the king did not want the properties of the
>>>>> Templars to be transferred to the Hospitallers after the
>>>>> suppression of the Templars. King Dinis claimed that the
>>>>> properties belonged to him personally, that the Templars were
>>>>> just usufructuaries. So the Pope had to let the king keep his
>>>>> properties and create a new military order of his own to succeed
>>>>> the Templars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not relevant to the KRS either, although I imagine that Eric is
>>>>> hinting that something similar may have happened in Scandinavia.
>>>>> But there is one significant difference: We know that there were
>>>>> Templars in Portugal. Is there any evidence that there ever were
>>>>> Templars in Scandinavia?
>>>> OK, I Eric want to discuss Templars in this way,
You forget one thing Eric. You started this thread
without any archaeological context. and what's more,
you only dumped an url, without any comment.
You can jump up end down as much as you like,
but you can't make this archaeology.
Peter Alaca
There is no use for the "I understand" and
"I seem to recall" kind of (un)published
evidence.
--
p.a.
Peter Alaca
> "t(nospam)kavanagh" skrev i
>> prd wrote:
>>> "Alan Crozier". . . :
>>>> I mean written, published, verifiable evidence, not speculative
>>>> interpretation.
>>> Have you forgotten the grey fryers? Inger showed us a barn in some
>>> weirdly named town that had grey fryers inside.
>> Are you talking about the fish fryers, or the chip monks? ;-)
> tk,
> now you are out of your own territory but had you had contacts with
> some of the Elderly in at least two of the North American First
> Nation groups you would have been told about what happened in that
> special Grey Friars house. They been told long ago of details which
> took me half a year to confirm from written 1400's documents.
>
> Inger E
Grey friars and elderly in a dark shed. Intriguing!
Tell us more. Your friend Bernard must love it.
--
p.a.
Peter Alaca
:-)
I'm not sure that is in the right order.
If the 'The Road to Jerusalem' is true then the
Gestilren stone is probably commemorating
Arn Magnusson's 'battles' with the two sisters.
Doug Weller
Naughty. :-)
By the way, just in case anyone is confused, Bernard has 2 addresses, one
old one (yahoo.co.uk), one new (hotmail.com). I like his posts combatting
idiots like Giwer and Creationists by the way.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
JerryT
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
snip
> The specific question, as you well know, is whether or not the
> inscription on the KRS could have anything to do with the claimed 15th
> century Templar inscriptions in Gotland.
What is claimed?
A '15th century Templar', 'Templar inscriptions' or
'15th century Templar inscriptions' ?
JerryT
snip
Peter Alaca
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:40:20 +0100, in sci.archaeology, Peter Alaca
> wrote:
>
>> IE J wrote: RcDHf.44488$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net,
>>> "t(nospam)kavanagh" skrev i
>>>> prd wrote:
>>>>> "Alan Crozier". . . :
>>
>>>>>> I mean written, published, verifiable evidence, not speculative
>>>>>> interpretation.
>>
>>>>> Have you forgotten the grey fryers? Inger showed us a barn in some
>>>>> weirdly named town that had grey fryers inside.
>>
>>>> Are you talking about the fish fryers, or the chip monks? ;-)
>>
>>> tk,
>>> now you are out of your own territory but had you had contacts with
>>> some of the Elderly in at least two of the North American First
>>> Nation groups you would have been told about what happened in that
>>> special Grey Friars house. They been told long ago of details which
>>> took me half a year to confirm from written 1400's documents.
>>>
>>> Inger E
>>
>> Grey friars and elderly in a dark shed. Intriguing!
>> Tell us more. Your friend Bernard must love it.
>
> Naughty. :-)
Yes, it was inappropriate to relate Bernard's
personal (though publicly exposed) life to
the Grey Friars.
> By the way, just in case anyone is confused, Bernard has 2 addresses,
> one old one (yahoo.co.uk), one new (hotmail.com). I like his posts
> combatting idiots like Giwer and Creationists by the way.
>
--
p.a.
prd
news:43ef10a3$3$52397$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl by "Peter Alaca"
<P.A...@206.nn> . . . :
>> now you are out of your own territory but had you had contacts
>> with some of the Elderly in at least two of the North American
>> First Nation groups you would have been told about what
>> happened in that special Grey Friars house. They been told long
>> ago of details which took me half a year to confirm from
>> written 1400's documents.
>>
>> Inger E
>
> Grey friars and elderly in a dark shed. Intriguing!
> Tell us more. Your friend Bernard must love it.
They had to leave town and travel far far away . . . . to a place
called brokeback mountain . . . .
t(nospam)kavanagh
What the bloody hell are you talking about?
tk
IE J
"JerryT" <n...@for.me> skrev i meddelandet
news:b7EHf.44494$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net...
Jerry,
this time you aren't nice to Eric. Arn is a fictious person author Guillou
invented.
But if you had quoted from Arkeologiforum.se's discussions for example 20th
Nov 2005...
"tiohäradlagmannen Birger Ulfsson som var en son till den heliga Birgitta
och Ulf Magnusson till Ulvåsa dubbades till riddare av Den heliga graven i
Jerusalem år 1372 "
with ref to Theutenberg Bo J, Från den heliga graven till Västergötland
you would have been closer to the truth.
short summery of the Swedish text, St Birgitta and Ulf Magnusson's son
Birger Ulfsson became knight of The Holy Grave in Jerusalem 1372 AD.
As you and the other probably knows the Order of the Holy Grave still is one
of the Orders with center in the Vatican state. That Order worked close to
and with the Knights Templars who helped protect the valuables that the
Order of the Holy Grave were guardians for.
Inger E
> >
> >
> > Eric Stevens
> >
>
>
IE J
are you trying to tell me and others that you still haven't been told about
the artifacts which was given to be protected by Indian tribes in 14th
century?
Make no mistake you will here a lot more about them in the future.
Inger E
>
> tk
JerryT
"IE J" <inger_e....@telia.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:wvJHf.44558$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net...
>
snip
>
> Jerry,
> this time you aren't nice to Eric. Arn is a fictious person author Guillou
> invented.
> But if you had quoted from Arkeologiforum.se's discussions for example
20th
> Nov 2005...
> "tiohäradlagmannen Birger Ulfsson som var en son till den heliga Birgitta
> och Ulf Magnusson till Ulvåsa dubbades till riddare av Den heliga graven i
> Jerusalem år 1372 "
> with ref to Theutenberg Bo J, Från den heliga graven till Västergötland
> you would have been closer to the truth.
In memory of his chivalry.
http://www.historiska.se/collections/shm-bild/visa_stor.asp?ID=5569
JerryT
>snip
t(nospam)kavanagh
Oh you've told us about them alright, multiple times. But you still
haven't given us any evidence that they actually exist.
tk
(And you still haven't gotten the joke above did you?)
JerryT
http://shorl.com/gidasatudrupri
JjT
Tom McDonald
Eric,
Don't try to teach your granny to suck eggs. None of the above
says archaeology has to take an interest in artifacts that are
better studied by other disciplines. The KRS is an archaeological
artifact. However, its value to archaeology is next to nil (and
please don't pick on the 'next to' bit to try to resurrect it as
archaeology) *until* who made it and when can be verified. Until
then, it is OT here, except for speculation as to what it might
mean. And that is the extent of its current value to archaeology.
> Bearing in mind that this discussion is taking place in the news group
> sci.archaeology and, as you well know, in the context of the
> interpretation of the KRS and its relationship to 14th and 15th
> century artifacts in Gotland it is reasonable to discuss the
> interpretation of these various artifacts in this news group. That is
> unless you are one of the people who think archaeology stops with the
> finding and cataloging of artifacts. Such an attitude reduces
> archaeology to mere stamp collecting.
I do not accept your thesis. Can you name one of the above
artifacts that has been interpreted primarily via archaeology?
No, indeed you cannot. The 'artifacts' for the most part were
never lost; and their interpretation lies primarily in the areas
of documentary examination, architectural analysis and historical
studies.
The last two sentences you yourself should by now be able to
answer. That you could consider writing them about me is
insulting and counter to the evidence.
>> That rant said, what artifacts are you talking about? The first
>>post in this thread mentioned none; and AFAICS, the first place
>>to ask questions about artifacts in this discussion is in a
>>*history* ng. In this case, history takes the point, not
>>archaeology. If there is a use for archaeology here, it will come
>
>>from a specific question arising from the history.
>
> The specific question, as you well know, is whether or not the
> inscription on the KRS could have anything to do with the claimed 15th
> century Templar inscriptions in Gotland.
So far, the entire discussion of the KRS runes vis a vis the
Gotland runes has been historical and linguistic. Or can you show
me an archaeological aspect that I've somehow missed?
> As I am sure you also know
> there are a number of people in this news group who want to kill that
> line of consideration by arguing that the Templars as an organisation
> were shut down - killed dead - in 1307 by a decree of the pope. I
> cited the particular URL to show that that particular line of argument
> was false.
Wonderbar. History. I love history. If I wanted to discuss
history, I'd go to a history ng to do so. Why don't you? Perhaps
that ng discussion may develop questions archaeology might help
to answer. That would be the appropriate time to come back here,
with those questions.
> It follows that those who want to argue that the papal bull of 1307
> means that there could be no possible Templar inscriptions in Gotland
> (and putatively in Minnesota) are wrong.
Fine. Has nothing to do with archaeology, but fine.
>> What specific archaeological(s) question arising from the
>>history you have mentioned can you point to now? If none now, why
>>not take this to a history ng and come back here when you have
>>something appropriate for s.a.?
>
>
> I'm bringing it here because it relates to (1) trying "to work out
> what the remains mean"
What remains? The KRS runes? The Gotland runes? These are *not
currently* archaeological questions.
> and (2) "The systematic study of past human
> life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material
> evidence"
The remains you are talking about have all been recovered. The
examination is on-going, with the primary effort in areas other
than archaeology. At the point when those other disciplines come
to some reasonable consensus, then it would be appropriate to
bring the issue back to archaeology for discussion. Not before.
Except, as noted, if one wanted to blue-sky speculate ahead of
the facts.
> and (3) "the branch of anthropology concerned with the
> systematic investigation of the relics of man".
See my first paragraph in this part of the thread. Unless you
truly believe that archaeology should be the first resort of,
say, the history of printing.
> I know that there are good reasons why people are p**d off to high
> heaven with some of the claims that have been put forward for the KRS
> but that does not mean that it does not warrant serious consideration.
> I'm trying to conduct a serious discussion through all the noise and
> arm waving.
And I'm trying to help you have that discussion in the right
place. At the moment, it ain't here.
Tom McDonald
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 02:16:06 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Eric Stevens wrote: o50tu15ru0vmpnl0d...@4ax.com,
>>
>>> "Alan Crozier" wrote
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>>And there is no evidence of any connection between Templars and
>>>>dotted R runes.
>>
>>>But there is a connection between the KRS and artifacts marked
>>>with a cross patee via the dotted R runes.
>>
>>Then the relation between the KRS and
>>the front our old city hall is stronger.
>
>
> That's always possible. Of which city is your hall. When was it buit?
> Is it in fact a cross patee? Is there a picture of it on the web?
All perfectly good questions that involve archaeology not at all.
>>>>>A. But of course they can't have been carved by the Templars
>>>>>as we all know the Templars ceased to exist in 1307.
>>>>>
>>>>>B. But they didn't all cease to exist in 1307. It is suspected (at
>>>>>least) that they continued in one form or another in many parts
>>>>>of the world. The URL which started this thread describes the
>>>>>continuance of the organisation in Portugal. This alone falsifies
>>>>>the claim that the Templars ceased to exist in their entirety in
>>>>>1307.
>>>>>
>>>>>A. Alright the Templars continued in another guise in Portugal
>>>>>but that is no evidence that they continued anywhere else.
>>>>>
>>>>>B. Agreed but it does mean that the continuation of the
>>>>>Templars in the Baltic cannot be bluntly denied. It also means
>>>>>that the post 1307 Templar symbols found in Gotland must be
>>>>>seriously considered as possible evidence of Templar
>>>>>(offshoot) activity in the region later than 1307.
>>
>>>>If you like that kind of speculation.
>>
>>>It's called debate.
>>
>>It's called debating speculation.
>
>
> That's what scholars did for nearly 1500 years.
So take it to where those speculative debates have occurred for
those centuries: historical discussion/debate groups.
Tom McDonald
...and therefore this discussion is historical, not archaeological.
Doug Weller
wrote:
I've been arguing something similar elsewhere with someone who wanted to
classify the interpretation of a painting using symbolism and mathematics
as either history or archaeology.
I don't think you are going to convince Eric. He's wrong, but he doesn't
understand why he's wrong.
An archaeology newsgroup should cover those things which archaeologists
are trained to discuss -- where they have the tools, the concepts, the
knowledge, etc due to their professional education. Archaeologists use
the knowledge of geologists and linguists and may have some rudimentary
knowledge of such fields, but they are separate disciplines.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
--- snip ----
>You forget one thing Eric. You started this thread
>without any archaeological context. and what's more,
>you only dumped an url, without any comment.
>You can jump up end down as much as you like,
>but you can't make this archaeology.
Don't be silly Peter. This is part of a long ongoing discussion of
many threads in this news group. You can hardly expect me to believe
that you did not know why I posted it or in what context.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
--- snip ---
>Eric,
>
> Don't try to teach your granny to suck eggs. None of the above
>says archaeology has to take an interest in artifacts that are
>better studied by other disciplines.
Nor is there anything to define which discipline is best qualified to
study an artifact or to establish what aspect of artifacts should not
be studied by archaeologists.
>The KRS is an archaeological
>artifact. However, its value to archaeology is next to nil (and
>please don't pick on the 'next to' bit to try to resurrect it as
>archaeology) *until* who made it and when can be verified.
Thank you. That's exactly my point. Trying to verify who made an
artifact and when is part of the role of archaeology.
>Until
>then, it is OT here, except for speculation as to what it might
>mean. And that is the extent of its current value to archaeology.
So you really do want to reduce archaeology to stamp collecting -
finding and cataloguing artifacts with no further thought given to
them by archaeologists. That will be a surprise to some.
>
>> Bearing in mind that this discussion is taking place in the news group
>> sci.archaeology and, as you well know, in the context of the
>> interpretation of the KRS and its relationship to 14th and 15th
>> century artifacts in Gotland it is reasonable to discuss the
>> interpretation of these various artifacts in this news group. That is
>> unless you are one of the people who think archaeology stops with the
>> finding and cataloging of artifacts. Such an attitude reduces
>> archaeology to mere stamp collecting.
>
> I do not accept your thesis. Can you name one of the above
>artifacts that has been interpreted primarily via archaeology?
>No, indeed you cannot. The 'artifacts' for the most part were
>never lost; and their interpretation lies primarily in the areas
>of documentary examination, architectural analysis and historical
>studies.
... and you don't think those skills are part of archaeology. :-(
Certainly there are experts and specialists in particular narrow
fields but that should not devolve an archaeologist from considering
these fields for himself.
>
> The last two sentences you yourself should by now be able to
>answer. That you could consider writing them about me is
>insulting and counter to the evidence.
I responded in the tone set by you.
>
>
>>> That rant said, what artifacts are you talking about? The first
>>>post in this thread mentioned none; and AFAICS, the first place
>>>to ask questions about artifacts in this discussion is in a
>>>*history* ng. In this case, history takes the point, not
>>>archaeology. If there is a use for archaeology here, it will come
>>
>>>from a specific question arising from the history.
>>
>> The specific question, as you well know, is whether or not the
>> inscription on the KRS could have anything to do with the claimed 15th
>> century Templar inscriptions in Gotland.
>
> So far, the entire discussion of the KRS runes vis a vis the
>Gotland runes has been historical and linguistic. Or can you show
>me an archaeological aspect that I've somehow missed?
I suppose you will also say that the study of the weathering of the
KRS runes is geologic. You should consider adding that the KRS was not
found by an archaeologist as part of a documented dig and therefore is
not an archaeological artifact.
>
>> As I am sure you also know
>> there are a number of people in this news group who want to kill that
>> line of consideration by arguing that the Templars as an organisation
>> were shut down - killed dead - in 1307 by a decree of the pope. I
>> cited the particular URL to show that that particular line of argument
>> was false.
>
> Wonderbar. History. I love history. If I wanted to discuss
>history, I'd go to a history ng to do so. Why don't you? Perhaps
>that ng discussion may develop questions archaeology might help
>to answer. That would be the appropriate time to come back here,
>with those questions.
One reason is that almost certainly there are people in the history
news groups who would not want to dicuss the KRS on the grounds that
such a discussion would be archaeological in nature and hence OT.
Such a division of the mind of man into water-tight compartments is
counterproductive and in conflict with the way that ideas develop.
>
>> It follows that those who want to argue that the papal bull of 1307
>> means that there could be no possible Templar inscriptions in Gotland
>> (and putatively in Minnesota) are wrong.
>
> Fine. Has nothing to do with archaeology, but fine.
>
>>> What specific archaeological(s) question arising from the
>>>history you have mentioned can you point to now? If none now, why
>>>not take this to a history ng and come back here when you have
>>>something appropriate for s.a.?
>>
>>
>> I'm bringing it here because it relates to (1) trying "to work out
>> what the remains mean"
>
> What remains? The KRS runes? The Gotland runes? These are *not
>currently* archaeological questions.
What would you regard as an archaeological question?
>
>> and (2) "The systematic study of past human
>> life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material
>> evidence"
>
> The remains you are talking about have all been recovered. The
>examination is on-going, with the primary effort in areas other
>than archaeology. At the point when those other disciplines come
>to some reasonable consensus, then it would be appropriate to
>bring the issue back to archaeology for discussion. Not before.
>Except, as noted, if one wanted to blue-sky speculate ahead of
>the facts.
That last often is how discoveries are made.
>
>> and (3) "the branch of anthropology concerned with the
>> systematic investigation of the relics of man".
>
> See my first paragraph in this part of the thread. Unless you
>truly believe that archaeology should be the first resort of,
>say, the history of printing.
And if an archaeologist recovers what might just be the remains of an
ancient printing device from a dig in Mesopotamia do they just put all
consideration of it aside at that point? What about the newly
discovered mummies in Egypt? They undoubtedly will be given a CAT
scan. Are you saying the archaeologists are not interested in the
possible implications of what is found?
>
>> I know that there are good reasons why people are p**d off to high
>> heaven with some of the claims that have been put forward for the KRS
>> but that does not mean that it does not warrant serious consideration.
>> I'm trying to conduct a serious discussion through all the noise and
>> arm waving.
>
> And I'm trying to help you have that discussion in the right
>place. At the moment, it ain't here.
You don't have to follow the thread. You don't have to engage in the
discussion. That's why threading was invented.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
--- snip ----
>> And I'm trying to help you have that discussion in the right
>>place. At the moment, it ain't here.
>
>I've been arguing something similar elsewhere with someone who wanted to
>classify the interpretation of a painting using symbolism and mathematics
>as either history or archaeology.
>
>I don't think you are going to convince Eric. He's wrong, but he doesn't
>understand why he's wrong.
>
>An archaeology newsgroup should cover those things which archaeologists
>are trained to discuss -- where they have the tools, the concepts, the
>knowledge, etc due to their professional education. Archaeologists use
>the knowledge of geologists and linguists and may have some rudimentary
>knowledge of such fields, but they are separate disciplines.
I don't generally disagree with much of what you have written. The
important point as I see it is that while archaeologists may have only
a relatively rudimentary knowledge of all kinds of fields (geology,
linguistics, history, dating techniques, chemistry etc), they do have
some knowledge and the consideration of the impact of such knowledge
on the conclusions they reach about an artifact is part of what they
do.
It may be argued that such a discussion should wait until an expert or
specialist has had their say, and in some respects that is fair
enough. But how does the expert or specialist become involved if they
are not first called in by an archaeologist who thinks the expert or
specialist may have something to study? It is an essential part of any
branch of science that discussions are allowed of broader scope than
is more narrowly defined by the core discipline.
Eric Stevens
IE J
:-)
If you send your correct mailaddress to my mailbox you will have the real
thing in return.
Inger E
>
>
> >snip
>
>
Tom McDonald
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:05:08 -0800, Tom McDonald
> <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> And I'm trying to help you have that discussion in the right
>>place. At the moment, it ain't here.
>
>
> You don't have to follow the thread. You don't have to engage in the
> discussion. That's why threading was invented.
You don't have to continue this discussion on the inappropriate
newsgroup. That's why groups with charters were invented.
Eric Stevens
The problem with the 14th and 15th centuries is that there is so much
that we in the 21st century no longer know.
The problem with secret societies is that there is so much about them
that we outsiders do not know.
The problem with 14th and 15th century secret societies is that there
is almost nothing that we can know of them in the 21st century.
With that preamble out of the way I will answer your question by
saying "not 'claimed' but 'considered'". There is a mystery here and
one of the better explanations for the inscriptions may be the
continuation of a Templar-like organisation, whether in secret or
under another name.
Eric Stevens
Tom McDonald
I have to blue-sky speculate that the response to KRS issues on
this ng might well be improved if such issues respected actual
archaeological practice.
Archaeologists do tire of demands by non-archies that the
non-archies know archaeologists' business better than
archaeologists themselves. What might the interface of
archaeologist and enthusiast be like if each understood and
respected the other?
Peter Alaca
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:05:08 -0800, Tom McDonald
> <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>
> --- snip ---
>
[...]
>> Wonderbar. History. I love history. If I wanted to discuss
>> history, I'd go to a history ng to do so. Why don't you? Perhaps
>> that ng discussion may develop questions archaeology might help
>> to answer. That would be the appropriate time to come back here,
>> with those questions.
>
> One reason is that almost certainly there are people in the history
> news groups who would not want to dicuss the KRS on the grounds that
> such a discussion would be archaeological in nature and hence OT.
> [...]
But you are not discussing the KRS here, but
the Templars.
The Templars are not archaeology but history.
Join shm, the Templars are discussed there at
the moment. Maybe you can learn something,
maybe you can learn them something
Peter Alaca
There was nothing wrong with the previous one.
--
p.a.
Peter Alaca
> [...]
> An archaeology newsgroup should cover those things which
> archaeologists are trained to discuss -- where they have the tools,
> the concepts, the knowledge, etc due to their professional education.
> Archaeologists use the knowledge of geologists and linguists and may
> have some rudimentary knowledge of such fields, but they are separate
> disciplines.
>
> Doug
It are seperate diciplines, but all are adding to our goal:
revealing an unknown or less well known past.
The task of archaeology is documentation, not collecting.
History is the same, only the archieves differ.
The difference is that archaeologists are getting their
hands dirty (If they are lucky)
Peter Alaca
> Eric Stevens
You can hardly expect from a silly person to know
your intentions when you dumped that bare url.
--
p.a
Peter Alaca
Do you have the real thing? Why?
You haven't the right.
--
p.a.
IE J
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
news:43efab7a$0$55031$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
IF I had been the owner of it I wouldn't be sitting with a knee that can't
bend after the injury.
I didn't say that I owned it only that he could have a picture in return for
the one he sent the group.
Inger E
>
> --
> p.a.
>
>
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> "Alan Crozier" wrote
>> [...]
>>>> And there is no evidence of any connection between Templars and
>>>> dotted R runes.
>>> But there is a connection between the KRS and artifacts marked
>>> with a cross patee via the dotted R runes.
>> Then the relation between the KRS and
>> the front our old city hall is stronger.
> That's always possible. Of which city is your hall. When was it buit?
> Is it in fact a cross patee? Is there a picture of it on the web?
> [...]
Both are made of stone. That is a far more direct
connection then via alleged dots on stones with
alleged Templar crosses.
You are like a relics pedlar. You try to sell us a twig
from the tree under which Mary and Joseph rested
on their way to Bethlehem.
Alan Crozier
news:o50tu15ru0vmpnl0d...@4ax.com...> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:c6nsu1ls79s78avc1...@4ax.com...
> >
> >Did the Templars have some sort of copyright on the croix
pâtée?
> >Was it never carved or painted or drawn by anyother
Christians?
>
> Originally it was awarded to the Templars by Pope Eugenius and
it was
> their particular mark. If a Templar used a cross it _would_ be
a cross
> patee. I am not aware of any reason why it could not be used
by
> others.
>
> I would not expect non-Templars to use it prior to 1307 which
was the
> year when the pope issued a bull against the Templars. Nor
would I
> expect non-Templars to use it in the years immediately
following 1307
> when great stigma might be attached to being a Templar. Not
that my
> expectations have much to do with what might actually have
happened.
>
> The least you can say is that if something is marked by a
cross patee
> then it has the potential to be linked to the Templars in some
way. I
> would go further and say that in the 14th and even 15th
centuries the
> use of the cross patee marks a probable Templar connection.
Even though the Templars did not exist then?
Has anyone got the text in which Pope Eugenius III awarded the
Templars the croix patee as their emblem? Did it mean that ONLY
the templars could use it? Did it specify an exact shape? The
croix patee seems to have taken a variety of forms.
What would have happened to this presumed exclusive right to the
croix patee after the Templars were dissolved? Did it pass with
the Templars' other property to the Hospitallers (except in
Portugal)?
If we find a gravestone on Gotland dated pre-1307 with a croix
patee, does it mean that the man under the stone could only have
been a templar? If so, does this mean that there was a Templar
preceptory on Gotland (i.e. that the Templars were organized
there), or might it just mean that this man had been abroad and
joined the Templars somewhere else where they WERE organized?
A lot of questions, I know, for Eric or whoever can answer them.
Another point about Portugal. We are perhaps supposed to believe
that the Templars there simply carried on after their
dissolution, although under a new name: the Order of Christ,
confirmed by the Pope in 1319 and with the Pope as patron. From
the url with which Eric started this non-archaeological thread,
we see that it wasn't that simple. Gil Martins, the man
appointed as the master of the new Order was not an ex-Templar.
He was former master of a different order, the Order of Avis.
Quote:
"Martins' past experience with military orders was probably the
catalyst that allowed the order to quickly expand to 69 knights
by 1321."
This doesn't sound to me as if the Order of Christ was merely a
continuation of the Templars under a new name. A completely new
order was created by the king, perhaps completely new men were
admitted to it? Would the Pope have accepted the admission of
men from the discredited and excommunicated order dissolved a
few years previously by his predecessor?
Returning to Sweden while bearing this in mind, I think that
Scott Wolter's claim, "It is hard to imagine that the Templars
even missed a beat in Sweden", is based on two unproven
assumptions: that there were organized Templars in Sweden to
begin with, and that they carried on unperturbed after the
dissolution, avoiding the Pope's excommunication by changing the
name of their order of joining a different order.
I'd like to see some hard evidence instead of guesswork.
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Eric Stevens
More like this news group was five or six years ago. In those days
even Yuri Kuchinsky was treated with a degree of politeness.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Doug Weller wrote: l32vu1tsjgtjsee1m...@4ax.com,
There is more to archaeology than that, if you accept the definition
of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology
"Archaeology or archeology (from the Greek words ??????? = ancient
and ????? = word/speech/discourse) is the study of human cultures
through the recovery, documentation and analysis of material
remains and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts,
biofacts, human remains, and landscapes.
The goals of archaeology are to document and explain the origins
and development of human culture, understand culture history,
chronicle cultural evolution, and study human behavior and
ecology, for both prehistoric and historic societies."
... documentation and analysis of material remains and environmental
data, including architecture, artifacts, biofacts, human remains, and
landscapes.
... to document and explain the origins and development of human
culture, understand culture history, chronicle cultural evolution, and
study human behavior and ecology, for both prehistoric and historic
societies
There is much more on that site which is relevant to this discussion.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: js4vu1paagam56q3e...@4ax.com,
What you seem to be doing is suggesting that a multidisciplinary
discussion of an archaeological artifact should be cross posted to
many news groups, even when such cross posting is not calling on the
expertise of those other groups.
I do cross post when such sharing of information is beneficial but
there seemed no point on this occasion.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:05:08 -0800, Tom McDonald
>> <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>
>>> And I'm trying to help you have that discussion in the right
>>>place. At the moment, it ain't here.
>>
>>
>> You don't have to follow the thread. You don't have to engage in the
>> discussion. That's why threading was invented.
>
> You don't have to continue this discussion on the inappropriate
>newsgroup. That's why groups with charters were invented.
The argument is about whether or not the discussion is within the
scope of the charter. http://tinyurl.com/b5ge9
"The charter, culled from the call for votes:
1 ) To exchange information on various concerns in
archaeology, including method and theory, pot
hunting, egyptology, typology, dating, and
other related topics.
2 ) To facilitate ongoing debates and comments on
ideas or research that may not necessarily be
in a publishable form.
3 ) To query other interested archaeologists about
resources which could be made generally available.
( e.g. programs, images, data, references, but not
exact site locations)
4 ) To keep each other informed on upcoming events of interest
to social science researchers and computing in the field
of archaeology."
It seems that drawing the attention of those interested to the Templar
URL falls in the scope of item 2.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: a6utu1dqh661qjtb1...@4ax.com,
I'm not trying to sell you anything. I'm inviting you to consider the
evidence. That you have not yet seen the evidence does not help.
Eric Stevens
Tom McDonald
You are quite right. No crossposting was needed. A better
perception of where your post was on-topic was needed.
You are really just the lightning rod right now. For years,
people have posted and discussed things that were not on-topic
per the s.a. charter, and *were* on-topic elsewhere.
Elsewhere you mention that things used to be more civil here.
That might be so, for some value of civil. (Larry Athy springs to
mind as an exception that tests that rule.) I suspect, as I said,
that life would be better here if we were able to let the
off-topic stuff just get ignored, and could focus on archaeology.
(I know, I'm a dreamer.)
That doesn't happen. Probably won't happen. Most likely can't
happen. But one can hardly fault folks for getting testy when
vast expanses of stuff related to archaeology only in the
perfervid mind of the poster get posted with a demand that it
gets treated with the respect due, say, tk.
Tom McDonald
This is how I read that item:
"2 ) To facilitate ongoing debates and comments on
archaeological issues or research that may not necessarily be in
a publishable form."
I don't read that as saying 'debates and comments on anything
remotely related to someone's idea of archaeological issues or
research that might not necessarily be in a publishable form."
The entire charter makes perfect sense as an archaeologist would
understand it. It is, of course, parsable by doing a Seppo to
mean *anything at all.*
Of the two, I'd choose to go with what an archaeologist would
understand.
BTW, how do you get from 'not necessarily publishable' to
'Templar history'? Not necessarily publishable implies to me at
least a middling-high academic standard, and not anyone's pet mania.
Eric Stevens
<name1...@telia.com> wrote:
>>> Did the Templars have some sort of copyright on the croix
>>> pâtée? Was it never carved or painted or drawn by anyother
>>>Christians?
>>
>> Originally it was awarded to the Templars by Pope Eugenius and
>> it was their particular mark. If a Templar used a cross it _would_ be
>> a cross patee. I am not aware of any reason why it could not be used
>> by others.
>>
>> I would not expect non-Templars to use it prior to 1307 which
>> was the year when the pope issued a bull against the Templars. Nor
>> would I expect non-Templars to use it in the years immediately
>> following 1307 when great stigma might be attached to being a Templar.
>> Not that my expectations have much to do with what might actually have
>> happened.
>>
>> The least you can say is that if something is marked by a
>> cross patee then it has the potential to be linked to the Templars in
>> some way. I would go further and say that in the 14th and even 15th
>> centuries the use of the cross patee marks a probable Templar connection.
>
>>Even though the Templars did not exist then?
There are many indications that not all parts of the organisation dies
until some time after 1307. In fact, nobody seems to know when the
last vestiges of the organisation disappeared, if they dissappeared at
all.
>
>Has anyone got the text in which Pope Eugenius III awarded the
>Templars the croix patee as their emblem? Did it mean that ONLY
>the templars could use it? Did it specify an exact shape? The
>croix patee seems to have taken a variety of forms.
There is an awful lot of information in http://tinyurl.com/c3vho but I
can get at hardly any of it.
>
>What would have happened to this presumed exclusive right to the
>croix patee after the Templars were dissolved? Did it pass with
>the Templars' other property to the Hospitallers (except in
>Portugal)?
See http://www.chivalricorders.org/vatican/christ.htm
and http://www.thornr.demon.co.uk/kchrist/overview.html
>
>If we find a gravestone on Gotland dated pre-1307 with a croix
>patee, does it mean that the man under the stone could only have
>been a templar? If so, does this mean that there was a Templar
>preceptory on Gotland (i.e. that the Templars were organized
>there), or might it just mean that this man had been abroad and
>joined the Templars somewhere else where they WERE organized?
The discovery raises the possibility/probability that the man under
the stone had a Templar connection. I don't know whether or not the
Templars had preceptory on Gotland. I can find no non-contentious
source which even suggests their presence.
>
>A lot of questions, I know, for Eric or whoever can answer them.
>
>Another point about Portugal. We are perhaps supposed to believe
>that the Templars there simply carried on after their
>dissolution, although under a new name: the Order of Christ,
>confirmed by the Pope in 1319 and with the Pope as patron. From
>the url with which Eric started this non-archaeological thread,
>we see that it wasn't that simple. Gil Martins, the man
>appointed as the master of the new Order was not an ex-Templar.
>He was former master of a different order, the Order of Avis.r
>Quote:
>
>"Martins' past experience with military orders was probably the
>catalyst that allowed the order to quickly expand to 69 knights
>by 1321."
>
>This doesn't sound to me as if the Order of Christ was merely a
>continuation of the Templars under a new name. A completely new
>order was created by the king, perhaps completely new men were
>admitted to it?
It has been argued that many Templars joined the new organisation.
>Would the Pope have accepted the admission of
>men from the discredited and excommunicated order dissolved a
>few years previously by his predecessor?
I gather that at that time it was not entirely up to the pope.
>
>Returning to Sweden while bearing this in mind, I think that
>Scott Wolter's claim, "It is hard to imagine that the Templars
>even missed a beat in Sweden", is based on two unproven
>assumptions: that there were organized Templars in Sweden to
>begin with, and that they carried on unperturbed after the
>dissolution, avoiding the Pope's excommunication by changing the
>name of their order of joining a different order.
The only order they could have joined was the Teutonic Knights.
>
>I'd like to see some hard evidence instead of guesswork.
>
Me too.
Eric Stevens
Doug Weller
wrote:
Which he certainly did not return. I don't think it's changed much in 10
years (before your time I believe?).
Doug Weller
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
I should point out that a major impetus for the creation of
sci.archaeology.moderated was the flaming going on in this newsgroup. It
might have lightened up a bit for a while and that must be what Eric is
thinking about.
>That might be so, for some value of civil. (Larry Athy springs to
>mind as an exception that tests that rule.) I suspect, as I said,
>that life would be better here if we were able to let the
>off-topic stuff just get ignored, and could focus on archaeology.
>(I know, I'm a dreamer.)
>
> That doesn't happen. Probably won't happen. Most likely can't
>happen. But one can hardly fault folks for getting testy when
>vast expanses of stuff related to archaeology only in the
>perfervid mind of the poster get posted with a demand that it
>gets treated with the respect due, say, tk.
Eric Stevens
<dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Archaeologists do tire of demands by non-archies that the
>>>non-archies know archaeologists' business better than
>>>archaeologists themselves. What might the interface of
>>>archaeologist and enthusiast be like if each understood and
>>>respected the other?
>>
>>More like this news group was five or six years ago. In those days
>>even Yuri Kuchinsky was treated with a degree of politeness.
>>
>>
>Which he certainly did not return. I don't think it's changed much in 10
>years (before your time I believe?).
I think that Yuri at his worst can't be compared with what goes at the
present time.
FYI, the oldest message I have in my archives for this news group is
dated 17 June 1997. The oldest Google can find is
http://tinyurl.com/aurg4 10 June 1996. I don't think either of these
are my first in this news group.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:51:10 -0800, Tom McDonald
<tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
I have already posted the link to the definition of archaeology at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology
"Archaeology or archeology (from the Greek words ??????? = ancient
and ????? = word/speech/discourse) is the study of human cultures
through the recovery, documentation and analysis of material
remains and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts,
biofacts, human remains, and landscapes.
The goals of archaeology are to document and explain the origins
and development of human culture, understand culture history,
chronicle cultural evolution, and study human behavior and
ecology, for both prehistoric and historic societies."
That there is no single definition of archaeology is made clear when
the above URL continues:
"In the Old World, archaeology has tended to focus on the study of
physical remains, the methods used in recovering them and the
theoretical and philosophical underpinnings in achieving the
subject's goals. The discipline's roots in antiquarianism and the
study of Latin and Ancient Greek provided it with a natural
affinity with the field of history. In the New World, archaeology
is more commonly devoted to the study of human societies and is
treated as one of the four subfields of Anthropology. The other
subfields of anthropology supplement the findings of archaeology in
a holistic manner. These subfields are cultural anthropology, which
studies behavioural, symbolic, and material dimensions of culture;
linguistics, which studies language, including the origins of
language and language groups; and physical anthropology, which
includes the study of human evolution and physical and genetic
characteristics. Other disciplines also supplement archaeology,
such as paleontology, paleozoology, paleoethnobotany, paleobotany,
geography, geology, art history, and classics.
Archaeology has been described as a craft that enlists the sciences
to illuminate the humanities. Writing in 1948, the American
archaeologist Walter Taylor asserted that "Archaeology is neither
history nor anthropology. As an autonomous discipline, it consists
of a method and a set of specialised techniques for the gathering,
or 'production' of cultural information".
Archaeology is an approach to understanding human culture through
its material remains regardless of chronology. In England,
archaeologists have uncovered the long-lost layouts of medieval
villages abandoned after the crises of the 14th century and the
equally lost layouts of 17th century parterre gardens swept away by
a change in fashion. In downtown New York City archaeologists have
exhumed the 18th century remains of the Black burial ground.
Traditional Archaeology is viewed as the study of pre-historical
human cultures; that is cultures that existed before the development
of writing for that culture. Historical archaeology is the study of
post-writing cultures.
In the study of relatively recent cultures, which have been observed
and studied by Western scholars, archaeology is closely allied with
ethnography. This is the case in large parts of North America,
Oceania, Siberia, and other places where the study of archaeology
mingles with the living traditions of the cultures being studied.
Kennewick Man is an example of archaeology interacting with modern
culture. In the study of cultures that were literate or had
literate neighbours, history and archaeology supplement one another
for broader understanding of the complete cultural context, as at
Hadrian's Wall."
I suspect that one of the differences between us is that I subscribe
to the broad definition while you prefer one that is narrow.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
>[...]
> The discovery raises the possibility/probability that the man under
> the stone had a Templar connection. I don't know whether or not the
> Templars had preceptory on Gotland. I can find no non-contentious
> source which even suggests their presence.
"That you have not yet seen the evidence does not help"
(ES today)
--
p.a.
IE J
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
Peter,
are you sure? I have seen a photo of the grave. Up to December you could
find it on net. A Gotlandic site.
Not up now.
Inger E
>
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" skrev
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> The discovery raises the possibility/probability that the man under
>>> the stone had a Templar connection. I don't know whether or not the
>>> Templars had preceptory on Gotland. I can find no non-contentious
>>> source which even suggests their presence.
>>> [...]
>> "That you have not yet seen the evidence does not help"
>> (ES today)
> Peter,
> are you sure? I have seen a photo of the grave. Up to December you
> could find it on net. A Gotlandic site.
> Not up now.
I think you are missing the point here.
--
p.a.
IE J
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
No you and many others are. There existed Knights Templars in Sweden. Make
no mistake about that.
http://62.20.57.212/ra/medeltid/FMPro?-db=hk.fp5&-format=detail.html&-lay=we
bb&-sortfield=brevnummer&-op=cn&datum=1300...1400&-op=cn&inneh%e5ll=tempel&-
max=100&-recid=35135&-find=
in May 1312 the Pope sent a letter to the Archbishop of Uppsala and the
Bishops in Skara and Linköping(!) where the Pope demanded that all what the
Knights Templars owned should be given to the Johanniter Order. A Pope
demanded, but as you and the others will find if you look more closely on
the Swedish Religious History a Pope's demand wasn't carried out the way it
was in France. More like in Scotland, Ireland, Denmark and Norway. But of
course then you have to spend a lot of time reading before you understand
why the Templar's cross on the grave in Gotland is of importance!
Inger E
>
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
> news:43f083bf$0$85977$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
>> IE J wrote: news:2GZHf.44637$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net
>>> "Peter Alaca" skrev
>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> The discovery raises the possibility/probability that the man
>>>>> under the stone had a Templar connection. I don't know whether or
>>>>> not the Templars had preceptory on Gotland. I can find no
>>>>> non-contentious source which even suggests their presence.
>>>>> [...]
>>
>>>> "That you have not yet seen the evidence does not help"
>>>> (ES today)
>>
>>> Peter,
>>> are you sure? I have seen a photo of the grave. Up to December you
>>> could find it on net. A Gotlandic site.
>>> Not up now.
>>
>> I think you are missing the point here.
> No you and many others are. There existed Knights Templars in Sweden.
> Make no mistake about that.
>
> http://62.20.57.212/ra/medeltid/FMPro?-db=hk.fp5&-format=detail.html&-lay=we
> bb&-sortfield=brevnummer&-op=cn&datum=1300...1400&-op=cn&inneh%e5ll=tempel&-
> max=100&-recid=35135&-find=
>
> in May 1312 the Pope sent a letter to the Archbishop of Uppsala and
> the Bishops in Skara and Linköping(!) where the Pope demanded that
> all what the Knights Templars owned should be given to the Johanniter
> Order. A Pope demanded, but as you and the others will find if you
> look more closely on the Swedish Religious History a Pope's demand
> wasn't carried out the way it was in France. More like in Scotland,
> Ireland, Denmark and Norway. But of course then you have to spend a
> lot of time reading before you understand why the Templar's cross on
> the grave in Gotland is of importance!
>
> Inger E
I Still think you missed the point.
-
p.a.
Tron
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i melding
news:mqrvu1hflelb09psl...@4ax.com...
>
> The only order they could have joined was the Teutonic Knights.
>>
Do you mean "joined as knights" .... and if so, couldn't they have joined
another hospitaller order, like the Knights of St. John? Not as
crypto-Templars, but just joined them to become reg. knights in that order?
And was there anything barring them from entering any other order (say,
Franciscans) merely as reg. members?
Were they all e.g. excommunicated?
T
am...@hotmail.com
Tron wrote:
> "Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i melding
> news:mqrvu1hflelb09psl...@4ax.com...
> >
> > The only order they could have joined was the Teutonic Knights.
> >>
>
> Do you mean "joined as knights" .... and if so, couldn't they have joined
> another hospitaller order, like the Knights of St. John? Not as
> crypto-Templars, but just joined them to become reg. knights in that order?
IIRC, this is what happened more than once.
>
> And was there anything barring them from entering any other order (say,
> Franciscans) merely as reg. members?
> Were they all e.g. excommunicated?
AFAIK, they were not. Which means that nothing would prevent them from
joining
another order.
IE J
"Tron" <tron...@frizurf.no> skrev i meddelandet
news:1fGdnWkrxqD...@telenor.com...
Tron,
you are on the right track. Not completely but almost.
The former Knights of the Templars could still be Knights of the Templars,
what's been missed is the so called Chinon parchment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinon_Parchment found in the Vatican Secret
archieve the other year.
(Yes Doug, it's the same as I hinted on both before and after an article was
published about it by the finder of the documents. I had heard from private
sources in Rome that they had been found)
The Chinon parchment for those who aren't familiar with them show that the
Pope absolved the Templars and that it was due to a betrayal by the Frank
King that the Grand Master of the Templars were burnt.
It was due to this secret absolvation the Pope sent request to Scotland,
Ireland, Denmark and Norway as well as to the Bishops of Skara and Linköping
in Sweden to get a better picture of what the Knights Templars owned and it
was due to that the Johanniter Order was given the 'rights' by the Pope to
the Templars owned property and wealth.
Some areas among them Mallorca and Portugal which the Pope after 1308 took
the Templars owned farms etc directly under the Vatican under which Templars
who declared themselves loyal with the Papal Church could continue to work,
they worked together with the Holy Grave Order.
In Scotland, Ireland, Norway and areas under Linköping's Bishop's See with
close contacts with the Christian churches and monestries in Gotland and the
Baltic since early mission days, the Templars worked together with the Grey
Friars. That was the reason why Nicholas of Lynn helped the Norse and the
Sinclairs.
Inger E
>
am...@hotmail.com
IE J wrote:
> "Tron" <tron...@frizurf.no> skrev i meddelandet
> news:1fGdnWkrxqD...@telenor.com...
> >
> > "Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i melding
> > news:mqrvu1hflelb09psl...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > The only order they could have joined was the Teutonic Knights.
> > >>
> >
> > Do you mean "joined as knights" .... and if so, couldn't they have joined
> > another hospitaller order, like the Knights of St. John? Not as
> > crypto-Templars, but just joined them to become reg. knights in that
> order?
> >
> > And was there anything barring them from entering any other order (say,
> > Franciscans) merely as reg. members?
> > Were they all e.g. excommunicated?
> >
> > T
>
> Tron,
> you are on the right track. Not completely but almost.
>
> The former Knights of the Templars could still be Knights of the Templars,
They could not after their order was disbanded by the reason quite
obvious: there was
no order of the Knights Templars anymore. They could become members of
some
_other_ order providing they were not _personally_ accussed of a
heresy, etc.
The story about Papal secret absolution (even if true) is irrelevant
because
it did not cancel an official disbandment of the order.
Alan Crozier
news:EC%Hf.44644$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net...
>
>
> No you and many others are. There existed Knights Templars in
Sweden. Make
> no mistake about that.
>
>
http://62.20.57.212/ra/medeltid/FMPro?-db=hk.fp5&-format=detail.html&-lay=we
>
bb&-sortfield=brevnummer&-op=cn&datum=1300...1400&-op=cn&inneh%e
5ll=tempel&-
> max=100&-recid=35135&-find=
People might find the document better with this link:
http://tinyurl.com/8s2yg
> in May 1312 the Pope sent a letter to the Archbishop of
Uppsala and the
> Bishops in Skara and Linköping(!) where the Pope demanded that
all what the
> Knights Templars owned should be given to the Johanniter
Order. A Pope
> demanded, but as you and the others will find if you look more
closely on
> the Swedish Religious History a Pope's demand wasn't carried
out the way it
> was in France. More like in Scotland, Ireland, Denmark and
Norway. But of
> course then you have to spend a lot of time reading before you
understand
> why the Templar's cross on the grave in Gotland is of
importance!
That letter shows only that the pope wrote asking about the
seizure of any Templar property in those dioceses. It does not
show that there was any Templar property there, nor any Templar
preceptories. Swedish historians have no evidence of any
organized Templars in Sweden.
The pope also wrote to the Danish king, Erik Menved, asking him
to arrest any Templars in his kingdom. But Danish historians
have no evidence of any templars in Denmark.
It just looks as if the popes wrote to the bishops and rulers in
all the Catholic countries to ensure that the arrest of the
Templars and the seizure of their property was implemented. The
letters could even go to countries where there were no organized
Templars, just in case.
Peter Alaca
> "IE J" wrote
That is exactly what I thought.
--
p.a.
Peter Alaca
Every time again I am very surprised to see
that Wikipedia is your primary source.
And then, nothing of what you write about
that document is from that wiki page.
You are not even able to give more relevant
sources.
Alan Crozier
Actually, that Wikipedia stub did lead to a serious academic
article in the Journal of Medieval History:
http://tinyurl.com/a6tgq
I didn't want to spend $30 dollars to read the whole article and
they don't have it in JStore. Have you got any contacts at
Elsevier (fellow freemasons, that sort of thing)?
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
>
>
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: news:mqrvu1hflelb09psl...@4ax.com
I did not say I had seen *no* evidence.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
No, no contacts there, and Elsevier is also a very
expencive publisher.
--
p.a.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i melding
>news:mqrvu1hflelb09psl...@4ax.com...
>>
>> The only order they could have joined was the Teutonic Knights.
>>>
>
>Do you mean "joined as knights" .... and if so, couldn't they have joined
>another hospitaller order, like the Knights of St. John? Not as
>crypto-Templars, but just joined them to become reg. knights in that order?
You are correct, I did mean joined as knights with similar rules and
ambitions.
>
>And was there anything barring them from entering any other order (say,
>Franciscans) merely as reg. members?
Franciscans were not a militant order.
>Were they all e.g. excommunicated?
>
I don't think so.
Eric Stevens