Question re. Norse finds in NA
Inger E
envelope sent to me with some chapters and photos. The text was as expected,
but the photos were much more than expected. Would anyone please tell me how
someone calling him/herself specialist and Scholar of Medieval
History/Archaeology can have overlooked the Alexandria Halberd; the Lake
Nipigon Find and the Swedish and Norse battle axes found near Brandon,
Minnesota. There are many more interesting items, for example several
medieval Scandinavian swords...... the latest supposed to have been found in
1960, I write supposed because I know of one found in the 1990's......
Please explain to me how any Scholar worth this degree upto now have managed
to explain away those items.
Inger E
post scriptum a battle ax let alone several battle axes aren't thing you
would expect a poor Scandinavian immigrant to own, the swords I know of are
hardly things found outside museums here in Sweden.
IEJ
George Black
>
> I haven't had the chance to look at Holland's book before but today I had an
> envelope sent to me with some chapters and photos. The text was as expected,
> but the photos were much more than expected. Would anyone please tell me how
> someone calling him/herself specialist and Scholar of Medieval
> History/Archaeology can have overlooked the Alexandria Halberd; the Lake
> Nipigon Find and the Swedish and Norse battle axes found near Brandon,
> Minnesota. There are many more interesting items, for example several
> medieval Scandinavian swords...... the latest supposed to have been found in
> 1960, I write supposed because I know of one found in the 1990's......
>
> Please explain to me how any Scholar worth this degree upto now have managed
> to explain away those items.
Any artifact that has no provenance has no history or any place in
historical claims.
The 'battleaxes' and the swords have no merit unless they are found in a
dateable strata and/or with associated (and dateable) artifacts
> post scriptum a battle ax let alone several battle axes aren't thing you
> would expect a poor Scandinavian immigrant to own, the swords I know of are
> hardly things found outside museums here in Sweden.
> IEJ
Any Scandinavian arriving in the US and seeking to buy a farm can in no
way be assumed to be poor.
Most of that migration was because of the lack of land in Scandinavia
Inger E
"George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C33F6C0...@ihug.co.nz...
> Inger E wrote:
> >
> > I haven't had the chance to look at Holland's book before but today I
had an
> > envelope sent to me with some chapters and photos. The text was as
expected,
> > but the photos were much more than expected. Would anyone please tell me
how
> > someone calling him/herself specialist and Scholar of Medieval
> > History/Archaeology can have overlooked the Alexandria Halberd; the Lake
> > Nipigon Find and the Swedish and Norse battle axes found near Brandon,
> > Minnesota. There are many more interesting items, for example several
> > medieval Scandinavian swords...... the latest supposed to have been
found in
> > 1960, I write supposed because I know of one found in the 1990's......
> >
> > Please explain to me how any Scholar worth this degree upto now have
managed
> > to explain away those items.
>
> Any artifact that has no provenance has no history or any place in
> historical claims.
If 100 artifacts or more, which is the case, which obviously are made by
Scandinavians before Columbus days is found in a part of US, that certainly
have provence and a history to tell. Don't underestimate the fact that one
single sword like one of the found ones made large articles written by
Scholars when it was found in Vattern Sea a year or two ago! more than 4
such found in an area in US are of very great interest.
>
> The 'battleaxes' and the swords have no merit unless they are found in a
> dateable strata and/or with associated (and dateable) artifacts
George, some of they are and they have according to text I have copies of in
my hand also BEEN identified as Scandinavian from Pre-Columbus days!!!!!!
>
> > post scriptum a battle ax let alone several battle axes aren't thing you
> > would expect a poor Scandinavian immigrant to own, the swords I know of
are
> > hardly things found outside museums here in Sweden.
> > IEJ
>
> Any Scandinavian arriving in the US and seeking to buy a farm can in no
> way be assumed to be poor.
George,
almost every Scandinavian who moved to US before 1930 moved because they had
starved or had to live a poor live. Please George contact the Immigrant
Museum in Växjö Sweden than you will learn that those people were poor they
had less than most poor people in many parts of the world have today!
> Most of that migration was because of the lack of land in Scandinavia
Nonsense! There never ever been lack of land in Scandinavia! Only lack of
money and by that lack of possibility to buy own house for most persons who
wasn't born rich. As late as during the First World War there were people
here in Sweden who starved. Don't make such mistake to believe that Sweden's
people always have had lot's of money, they haven't. As late as in 1950 only
4% of the Swedes had money enough to study to get a High School Exam, today
4% take the Ph.D degree.
Inger E
Doug Weller
inger_e....@telia.com says...
>
>
> If 100 artifacts or more, which is the case, which obviously are made by
> Scandinavians before Columbus days is found in a part of US, that certainly
> have provence and a history to tell. Don't underestimate the fact that one
> single sword like one of the found ones made large articles written by
> Scholars when it was found in Vattern Sea a year or two ago! more than 4
> such found in an area in US are of very great interest.
>
>
excavations in Scandinavia, is this true?
Is there a specifically Scandinavian type of halberd? Are these common finds in
Scandinavia? I certainly would think that if certain 'artefacts' are found more
often in North America than Scandinavia it would indeed be of very great
interest, but perhaps for different reasons.
Once again we suffer from lack of evidence for these claims.
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Inger E
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:MPG.169e7b551...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In article <25XY7.7724$l93.2...@newsb.telia.net>,
> inger_e....@telia.com says...
> >
> >
> > If 100 artifacts or more, which is the case, which obviously are made by
> > Scandinavians before Columbus days is found in a part of US, that
certainly
> > have provence and a history to tell. Don't underestimate the fact that
one
> > single sword like one of the found ones made large articles written by
> > Scholars when it was found in Vattern Sea a year or two ago! more than 4
> > such found in an area in US are of very great interest.
> >
> >
> I understand that weapons are not commonly found in Christian period
> excavations in Scandinavia, is this true?
yes and no. Normally yes, or so I have been told by my friend who work at
museum or elsewhere as archaeologists. Yes in some places where there have
been fights..... but there are not so many places where there have been
fights in Sweden the last 1000 years.... we Swedes have had a speciality to
fight on other groups land..... :-)
>
> Is there a specifically Scandinavian type of halberd? Are these common
finds in
> Scandinavia? I certainly would think that if certain 'artefacts' are found
more
> often in North America than Scandinavia it would indeed be of very great
> interest, but perhaps for different reasons.
The interesting thing isn't the halberd itself, however interesting that is
I only once seen one outside a museum btw, the interesting thing is that on
one of the swords you can actually see who it belonged to - that is if one
had a better photo. From the photocopy I have it's possible to say that
there are certain details which might identify the sword without any
questions at all if the details are confirmed and if one of the engraved
figures are the one it seems. If it is confirmed than there is no doubt that
Holland was more correct in some of the assumption other Scholars have
laughed at. But I don't think that Holland ever knew that some of the photos
actually can prove more than to be a picture of an artifact.
Never the less, there is no other way if we rule out UFO:s, and that we do,
those items could have comed to Minnesota and Wisconsin being found rusty
under 2-3 feet of ashes and earth, confirmed in statements in official
papers, than being brought there before their "age" was over(their= the
swords, battle axes, arder=the thing that Scandinavians used during the
early medieval days before the next step towards a plow(plough) was
invented).
Further more, Holland did in some cases make a "bad" translation of
affadevits written in Norwegian, thus the stringth of the confirmations
never reach English reading Scholars....
>
> Once again we suffer from lack of evidence for these claims.
No Doug,
that we don't. Have you read Holland? Write to me when you have him at hand
than I will send you more info(as usual) from other sources and also tell
you where to look in the book for confirmation.
Btw. One thing, in one photo it's possible to see shorelines that must have
been caused by waterlines during the last 500 years.... where? on a photo
over the area looking up to the place where KRS was found.
Inger E
George Black
At no time has one of your claimed 'artifacts' been found in situ in an
excuvation
> >
> > The 'battleaxes' and the swords have no merit unless they are found in a
> > dateable strata and/or with associated (and dateable) artifacts
>
> George, some of they are and they have according to text I have copies of in
> my hand also BEEN identified as Scandinavian from Pre-Columbus days!!!!!!
I have a collection of Roman coins mostly minted in York, England.
They are out of context and mean little else than they are a collection
> > > post scriptum a battle ax let alone several battle axes aren't thing you
> > > would expect a poor Scandinavian immigrant to own, the swords I know of
> are
> > > hardly things found outside museums here in Sweden.
> > > IEJ
> >
> > Any Scandinavian arriving in the US and seeking to buy a farm can in no
> > way be assumed to be poor.
>
> George,
> almost every Scandinavian who moved to US before 1930 moved because they had
> starved or had to live a poor live. Please George contact the Immigrant
> Museum in Växjö Sweden than you will learn that those people were poor they
> had less than most poor people in many parts of the world have today!
We are not talking about 1930.
So all those Swedes who bought farms in Minnesto were, in fact,
poor?????????
> > Most of that migration was because of the lack of land in Scandinavia
>
> Nonsense! There never ever been lack of land in Scandinavia! Only lack of
> money and by that lack of possibility to buy own house for most persons who
> wasn't born rich. As late as during the First World War there were people
> here in Sweden who starved. Don't make such mistake to believe that Sweden's
> people always have had lot's of money, they haven't. As late as in 1950 only
> 4% of the Swedes had money enough to study to get a High School Exam, today
> 4% take the Ph.D degree.
Starvation in Europe was not unknown and is still not unknown.
Don't change the subject.
Doug Weller
inger_e....@telia.com says...
> I haven't had the chance to look at Holland's book before but today I had an
> envelope sent to me with some chapters and photos. The text was as expected,
> but the photos were much more than expected. Would anyone please tell me how
> someone calling him/herself specialist and Scholar of Medieval
> History/Archaeology can have overlooked the Alexandria Halberd; the Lake
> Nipigon Find and the Swedish and Norse battle axes found near Brandon,
> Minnesota. There are many more interesting items, for example several
> medieval Scandinavian swords...... the latest supposed to have been found in
> 1960, I write supposed because I know of one found in the 1990's......
>
> Please explain to me how any Scholar worth this degree upto now have managed
> to explain away those items.
>
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <25XY7.7724$l93.2...@newsb.telia.net>,
>inger_e....@telia.com says...
>>
>>
>> If 100 artifacts or more, which is the case, which obviously are made by
>> Scandinavians before Columbus days is found in a part of US, that certainly
>> have provence and a history to tell. Don't underestimate the fact that one
>> single sword like one of the found ones made large articles written by
>> Scholars when it was found in Vattern Sea a year or two ago! more than 4
>> such found in an area in US are of very great interest.
>>
>>
>I understand that weapons are not commonly found in Christian period
>excavations in Scandinavia, is this true?
>
>Is there a specifically Scandinavian type of halberd? Are these common finds in
>Scandinavia? I certainly would think that if certain 'artefacts' are found more
>often in North America than Scandinavia it would indeed be of very great
>interest, but perhaps for different reasons.
There is a very simple explanation. During much of the period under
discussion, most of Scandinavia was a subservient vassal state to
Denmark. Few people had weapons.
The situation was entirely different in North America. I would expect
all persons to have access to arms for self-defence.
>
>Once again we suffer from lack of evidence for these claims.
If Inger is correct, the evidence exists but is being ignored or
discounted.
Eric Stevens
My new email address:- eric.s...@sum.co.nz
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <e6SY7.7693$l93.2...@newsb.telia.net>,
>inger_e....@telia.com says...
>> I haven't had the chance to look at Holland's book before but today I had an
>> envelope sent to me with some chapters and photos. The text was as expected,
>> but the photos were much more than expected. Would anyone please tell me how
>> someone calling him/herself specialist and Scholar of Medieval
>> History/Archaeology can have overlooked the Alexandria Halberd; the Lake
>> Nipigon Find and the Swedish and Norse battle axes found near Brandon,
>> Minnesota. There are many more interesting items, for example several
>> medieval Scandinavian swords...... the latest supposed to have been found in
>> 1960, I write supposed because I know of one found in the 1990's......
>>
>> Please explain to me how any Scholar worth this degree upto now have managed
>> to explain away those items.
>>
>Are you using Holland as your source for these claims?
>
*** WARNING ***
*** WARNING ***
Ad hominem argument ahead.
Inger E
> Inger E wrote:
> >
> > "George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:3C33F6C0...@ihug.co.nz...
> > > Inger E wrote:
> At no time has one of your claimed 'artifacts' been found in situ in an
> excuvation
George, they have and there are affadevits for it confirmed in the ordinary
legal way!
I guess you better look for the book, when you have it in your hand my offer
to you is the same as to Doug, I can send you more material when ever you
have the book in your hand, have read it and looked at certain pages which I
will refer to when sending you more information.
change the subject.
Inger E
Inger E
> In article <e6SY7.7693$l93.2...@newsb.telia.net>,
> inger_e....@telia.com says...
> > I haven't had the chance to look at Holland's book before but today I
had an
> > envelope sent to me with some chapters and photos. The text was as
expected,
> > but the photos were much more than expected. Would anyone please tell me
how
> > someone calling him/herself specialist and Scholar of Medieval
> > History/Archaeology can have overlooked the Alexandria Halberd; the Lake
> > Nipigon Find and the Swedish and Norse battle axes found near Brandon,
> > Minnesota. There are many more interesting items, for example several
> > medieval Scandinavian swords...... the latest supposed to have been
found in
> > 1960, I write supposed because I know of one found in the 1990's......
> >
> > Please explain to me how any Scholar worth this degree upto now have
managed
> > to explain away those items.
> >
> Are you using Holland as your source for these claims?
I only use Holland as a checkingpoint for information I have gained from
Primary sources(documents from 870-1550 AD and excavation reports, I guess
many forgotten that there were excavations before WWWII.
However, the affadefits which still can be confirmed can be used as any
other alike documentation given with officials as eyewitness.
btw, I know that someone took precaution to "tape" some of the Elderly who
had the knowledge you asked for. So in fact there are written and taped
documentation from people now dead since long......
The photos can be used as well.
Doug, take a look at Renia's, mine and others discussion under "Anglo-Saxon"
stuff for what can be used as sources by a Scholar of History, how the
sources are to be valuated and so on.
Inger E
Inger E
if Doug would make believe that Holland's presented information can't be
used with the prejudges that people who have given affadevits in the presens
of normal Officials, than Doug wouldn't be the Doug I have seen in this
group over the years. I think that Doug will try to get hold of the book so
we can discuss and I can send him documentation I have received over the
last 10 years....
btw when it comes to waterways confirm the 1895 map I sent you two years
ago. In other word the Iron Lake Sea which I refered to four years ago can
be confirmed not only from 1895 map but also from one of the Photos in
Holand's book and one sworn evidence.... Why haven't we been told that
before?
Inger E
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:r81a3uofv28ljtus2...@4ax.com...
Daryl Krupa
<snip>
> Btw. One thing, in one photo it's possible to see shorelines that must have
> been caused by waterlines during the last 500 years.... where? on a photo
> over the area looking up to the place where KRS was found.
What's the big deal?
Beavers occupy an area, build a dam, raise the waterlevel, then
disappear for whatever reason (starvation, disease, predation),
leaving the dam unrepaired and liable to failure.
Waterlevels drop again.
This might well have happened several times in the last half-millennium.
Such waterlevel changes could be completely independent of secular
variation such as climate and watertable changes.
Sure, it might mean that the waterlevel in the slough next to Runestone
Hill was once higher, but when? And so what?
You're too easily impressed.
Daryl Krupa
George Black
>
> "George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
> news:3C34B1B1...@ihug.co.nz...
> > Inger E wrote:
> > >
> > > "George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
> > > news:3C33F6C0...@ihug.co.nz...
> > > > Inger E wrote:
> <snip>>
> > At no time has one of your claimed 'artifacts' been found in situ in an
> > excuvation
>
> George, they have and there are affadevits for it confirmed in the ordinary
> legal way!
How on earth can you interpret the word NO as being anything else!
There are NO such authentic relics recovered from archaeological strata
that contains contemporary Indian deposits.
There are NO settlements NO camps NO graves that are anomalous in this
scope.
There is NO archaeologist who has produced evidence (written papers,
books, photos and scholarly works) that backs your 'point'
An affdavit doesn't mean a lot.
There -are- nutters who have advanced claims to reinforce their somewhat
strained beliefs.
> I guess you better look for the book, when you have it in your hand my offer
> to you is the same as to Doug, I can send you more material when ever you
> have the book in your hand, have read it and looked at certain pages which I
> will refer to when sending you more information.
> change the subject.
Just present adequate evidence. For a change. Make this a good new year
eh
Doug Weller
says...
>
> Eric,
> if Doug would make believe that Holland's presented information can't be
> used with the prejudges that people who have given affadevits in the presens
> of normal Officials, than Doug wouldn't be the Doug I have seen in this
> group over the years. I think that Doug will try to get hold of the book so
> we can discuss and I can send him documentation I have received over the
> last 10 years....
>
>
about Holand not because I think everything he writes must be wrong because
he's some sort of bad guy, as Eric seems to think I was going to do, but
because as I wanted to raise some specific queries about what I believe to be
the book in question (and once again, Eric seems concerned about possible,
although in this case non-existent, ad hominem from someone he disagrees with
while ignoring Athy's vicious ad hominem's aimed at people posting here, some
in articles Athy wrote here yesterday).
One is the axe found at Republic, Minn., which Holand said was medieval and
stated that he knew of 'an exact duplicate' in the Norwegian De Sandvigske
Samlinger museum in Lillehammer. The problem here is that this axe was
transferred to the museum in Lillehammer from the Oslo Antiquities Museum
because it was found to "date not from the Middle Ages but from the Historic
Period" - the quote is from a letter from the curator of the De Sandvigske
Samlinger museum to Birgitta Wallace.
Birgitta Wallace adds that this axe, the axe head found in Mora also claimed by
Holand to be medieval, and others are early American lumbering tools called
socket paring axes. Of course this type of early axe had a European origin,
but are probably American made because they have a weight added to the butt for
balance, an American innovation.
As for some of the halberds, even Holand stated that because they were riveted,
malleable cast iron and flimsy that they were not for practical use but were
ceremonial. In his 1962 "A Pre-Columbian Crusade to America" he wrote he could
find none like these in Scandinavia, but in another publication he wrote that
he he had a letter from the University Museum in Oslo which said they were from
the period of 1500. Wallace says that in fact these are 19th century tobacco
cutters made during an advertising campaign for Battle-Ax tobacco by the Rogers
Iron Company of Springfield Ohio. This also explains the oval hole on the top
terminal, and the straight portion of the crescentic bit where it had been
sawed off from its hinge.
Which Holand publication are you using?
Inger E
the big deal is that we are discussing the sea that so many Scholars have
said never existed around the Kensington Stone's finding place. The big deal
is that the sea also is shown on a 1895 map which Scholar who said that the
sea never existed have bothered to looked at. The big deal is that on the
same 1895 map one other sea close by in the same watersystem is shown. Both
the sea vanished in the early 20th Century due to the fact that they were
drained!
The big deal is that there in Holand's book exists a confirmation from an
official Geologist that the later sea had three skerries. The big deal is
more than that, but I rest for now!
Inger E
"Daryl Krupa" <icyc...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:c70365ef.02010...@posting.google.com...
Inger E
how on Earth can you without looking at all evidence believe it possible to
from a far distance without all photos, maps, documentations from 507 AD btw
believe that those we have had access the last years together with the
information+ photo+ the affidavits by Scholars from Ph.D. up to Prof.
presented by Holand in his book can't hold up to normal Academic standard?
In fact George the standard presented by Holand is above normal Academic
standard used in almost ALL dissertations before 1970!!!!
Please George try to get hold of Holand's book:
Norse Discoveries & Explorations in America 982-1362.
Read the text with open mind, ask any question you want and I will promise
you that it's possible to prove that the artifacts are genuine, Scandinavian
and that not even you after that study can object to that conclusion. Please
read it first, I have promised to send you several files with other
documentation when you have read the text.
Don't act like a 5-year old boy shouting: "It's not true, it's not true" be
a man and don't pretend you know before you have checked all information
available.
Inger E
"George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C354FAB...@ihug.co.nz...
Inger E
Holland said that the axe was medieval due to a testimony from a Norwegian
Scholar and an American Prof. btw. the fact that it's medieval have been
confirmed later on by Archaeologist Gunnar Lindqvist(a photo of the axe in
question was one of 10 I showed Gunnar the other year). That's not the shaky
part of Holland, the assumption that it was made of the same person as the
Lillehammer axe was made needs more documentation to be proven correct.
Inger E
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:MPG.169f6c56c...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Doug Weller
inger_e....@telia.com says...
> the big deal is that we are discussing the sea that so many Scholars have
> said never existed around the Kensington Stone's finding place. The big deal
> is that the sea also is shown on a 1895 map which Scholar who said that the
> sea never existed have bothered to looked at. The big deal is that on the
> same 1895 map one other sea close by in the same watersystem is shown. Both
> the sea vanished in the early 20th Century due to the fact that they were
> drained!
> The big deal is that there in Holand's book exists a confirmation from an
> official Geologist that the later sea had three skerries. The big deal is
> more than that, but I rest for now!
>
1895
I can't find a reference in Google of your mentioning an Iron Lake Sea 4 years
ago, or an 1895 map 2 years ago. Are you referring to some map you think copied
from http://feature.geography.wisc.edu/histcart/v3cap.html
I did find Keith Littleton's post at
http://groups.google.com/groups?
q=Inger+map+group:sci.archaeology&scoring=r&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5
&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=4&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=1999&selm=O7At1.211%24KC3.2486591%
40ralph.vnet.net&rnum=29
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <TM9Z7.1221$n4.4...@newsc.telia.net>, inger_e....@telia.com
Reasons for not trusting Bigitta Wallace in these matters have been
very recently posted in this news group. Namely, she is not reluctant
to cite most dubious sources to support her arguments.
>
>As for some of the halberds, even Holand stated that because they were riveted,
>malleable cast iron and flimsy that they were not for practical use but were
>ceremonial. In his 1962 "A Pre-Columbian Crusade to America" he wrote he could
>find none like these in Scandinavia, but in another publication he wrote that
>he he had a letter from the University Museum in Oslo which said they were from
>the period of 1500. Wallace says that in fact these are 19th century tobacco
>cutters made during an advertising campaign for Battle-Ax tobacco by the Rogers
>Iron Company of Springfield Ohio. This also explains the oval hole on the top
>terminal, and the straight portion of the crescentic bit where it had been
>sawed off from its hinge.
>
>Which Holand publication are you using?
>
>Doug
Eric Stevens
Inger E
I sent a copy of the map to Eric and some other 2 years ago.
Are you referring to some map you think copied
> from http://feature.geography.wisc.edu/histcart/v3cap.html
No I am not. Doug, I will send you file directly + other essential
information.
Inger E
Doug Weller
inger_e....@telia.com says...
> Holland said that the axe was medieval due to a testimony from a Norwegian
> Scholar and an American Prof. btw. the fact that it's medieval have been
> confirmed later on by Archaeologist Gunnar Lindqvist(a photo of the axe in
> question was one of 10 I showed Gunnar the other year). That's not the shaky
> part of Holland, the assumption that it was made of the same person as the
> Lillehammer axe was made needs more documentation to be proven correct.
>
Samlinger to explain. And the point about the weight added to the butt for
balance. Is this in fact also found on axes in Scandinavia? Is this on the
Lillehammer axe?
Inger E
there have been at least two statements by a person in the position in
Norway you ref. to. Only one of them refer to the older period......
Inger E
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:MPG.169fb563c...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Mike Cleven
Doug Weller wrote:
>
> In article <D1eZ7.7883$l93.2...@newsb.telia.net>,
> inger_e....@telia.com says...
> > the big deal is that we are discussing the sea that so many Scholars have
> > said never existed around the Kensington Stone's finding place. The big deal
> > is that the sea also is shown on a 1895 map which Scholar who said that the
> > sea never existed have bothered to looked at. The big deal is that on the
> > same 1895 map one other sea close by in the same watersystem is shown. Both
> > the sea vanished in the early 20th Century due to the fact that they were
> > drained!
> > The big deal is that there in Holand's book exists a confirmation from an
> > official Geologist that the later sea had three skerries. The big deal is
> > more than that, but I rest for now!
> >
> Are you referring to Cormorant Lake? Or? And could I have a reference for the
> 1895
>
> I can't find a reference in Google of your mentioning an Iron Lake Sea 4 years
> ago, or an 1895 map 2 years ago. Are you referring to some map you think copied
> from http://feature.geography.wisc.edu/histcart/v3cap.html
Inger's using "sea" in the sense that Scandinavians use 'sjo' (with
o-umlaut or slash-o); to mean "lake"; this is not a reference to the
high seas, or even necessarily to a very large body of water; just a
body of water.
MC
Doug Weller
have skerries.
George Black
Inger E wrote:
>
> George,
> how on Earth can you without looking at all evidence believe it possible to
> from a far distance without all photos, maps, documentations from 507 AD btw
> believe that those we have had access the last years together with the
> information+ photo+ the affidavits by Scholars from Ph.D. up to Prof.
> presented by Holand in his book can't hold up to normal Academic standard?
>
> In fact George the standard presented by Holand is above normal Academic
> standard used in almost ALL dissertations before 1970!!!!
You have a strange thing about items 'scholarly'
> Please George try to get hold of Holand's book:
> Norse Discoveries & Explorations in America 982-1362.
> Read the text with open mind, ask any question you want and I will promise
> you that it's possible to prove that the artifacts are genuine, Scandinavian
> and that not even you after that study can object to that conclusion. Please
> read it first, I have promised to send you several files with other
> documentation when you have read the text.
So why hasn't the body archaeological access to this same data??
> Don't act like a 5-year old boy shouting: "It's not true, it's not true" be
> a man and don't pretend you know before you have checked all information
> available.
If your rambling assertions had some basis in fact, if there was as much
evidence as was for L'Anse aux Meadows then okay. But there is no
evidence, nothing tangible and' yes, I have checked the evidence.
Hammerstad
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 07:39:53 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Reasons for not trusting Bigitta Wallace in these matters have been
> very recently posted in this news group. Namely, she is not reluctant
> to cite most dubious sources to support her arguments.
>
Now look who's talking!
Inger E
for your information, and others, there are as much documentation,
affidavits(how do you spell that btw) as in L'anse Medow. Old documentation,
written and verbal taped on band, old written vidimetation of ages of the
found artifacts - new vidimitation is underway. Most of the items found in
two countys. Both close to watersystem that had, observe had, waterlevels as
late as 1910 when some lakes where drained(observe that when I used sea as
the word I used it due to the fact that US-geologists in their statements
from 1914-1930 used that word).
And there's more. One of the axes still have the wood-handle which in
the1930's by a Scholar specialist in wood confirmed to be either from the
Arctic Canada or from Norway and to have been under water for several
hundred years. In other words there is tree to be tested via
dendrocronological methods....
Btw. a Halberd in the Pre-Columbian days in Scandinavia was only, I repeat
only carried by person or persons belonging to the King's army,
representative etc. The same goes for swords........ it's highly unlikely
that you would find more such Scandinavian items in an area like the one in
question anywhere in the world than you have found the same types in for
example the earth in Östergötland if there hadn't been at least a larger
group of people on an expedition in the area or(and more likely) the area in
question also had at least one or more settlements with a Royal Farm. btw.
we do know that such a longhouse existed in Vinland at least in the 11th
Century - and mind you George we don't have to use Icelandic Saga's written
in the 12th-14th Century to tell us that, there are far better sources
written between 1050-1070 AD to be used for information re. Vinland.
Inger E
"George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C35FB9F...@ihug.co.nz...
Steve Marcus
>
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 07:39:53 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <TM9Z7.1221$n4.4...@newsc.telia.net>, inger_e....@telia.com
> >says...
> >>
> >
> >Birgitta Wallace adds that this axe, the axe head found in Mora also claimed by
> >Holand to be medieval, and others are early American lumbering tools called
> >socket paring axes. Of course this type of early axe had a European origin,
> >but are probably American made because they have a weight added to the butt for
> >balance, an American innovation.
>
> Reasons for not trusting Bigitta Wallace in these matters have been
> very recently posted in this news group. Namely, she is not reluctant
> to cite most dubious sources to support her arguments.
Oh come on, you dishonest SOB. Your "man" Holand is infamous in
scholastic circles for having championed a particular sword as
being a pre-Columbian Norse artifact, when in fact the sword was
of American manufacture, circa 1800, and _bore the freakin'
maker's mark showing that it had been made in Philadelphia_.
When I have cited this tidbit in the past, you accused me of
character assassination, and opined that it was wrong to
disqualify all of Holand's allegations based upon this one
incident.
Now you would do the same thing to an accredited Ph.D in the
field, based upon your quibble with respect to the weight that
she would give to a particular source?
You own a copy of "Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga" (unless you
lied about ordering one and receiving it). Take a peek at pages
374-384, and in particular, pages 375 and 377, assuming your
self-proclaimed "open mind" is in fact really so open. The
latter two pages explain in language that even _you_ should be
able to understand why the axes and armor and halberds, etc.,
etc. that have been discovered in North America (apparently as
part of a cottage industry peculiar to areas of North America
that just happen to have large numbers of 19th century Nordic
immigrant settlements coincidentally at or near to the site of
these "discoveries") have not been accepted as being valid
pre-Columbian Norse artifacts.
Large numbers of pre-Columbian Norse artifacts that have been
verified as such have been found in the Canadian Arctic and in
Greenland. Invariably, these artifacts are found either in
Native American (Dorset or Thule or so-called "Indian" sites), or
among the remains of Norse sites (Greenland and L'anse aux
Meadows). These artifacts evidently arrived by reason of direct
contact (trade) with the between the natives and the Norse, or
indirectly by reason of Norse to native and then to other native
trade. They include cloth, tools of various sorts, cooking
implements, etc., and at least one coin. But for some strange
reason, the more southern "artifacts" seem confined to weapons
and a firestarter or two and an amulet or two; no cloth, no
cooking implements, no tools, nothing that might be associated
with a living site (whether Norse or Native American).
The alleged pre-Columbian Norse artifacts found in the outside of
the Canadian Arctic and Greenland are never found in the context
of any site, Native American or otherwise, with the exception of
L'anse aux Meadows. They are found in areas that provide no
context in terms of either a site occupied by someone, or a site
that would make sense in terms of going from point A to point B.
These artifacts are sometimes of a sort that might easily be in
the possession of a Nordic immigrant as a "hand-me-down" (like a
firestarter), much as I possess several 19th century Civil War
era bullets that undoubtedly will end up in possession of my
descendants into the next century and beyond. In addition, many
of the most loudly trumpeted "Norse" artifacts have turned out to
be bald-faced fakes. See, for example, the Crandall Hammers and
the Spirit Pond runestones. Many others that were loudly
trumpeted have turned out to be "mistakes" (simple and
otherwise), such as the Ulen sword (Holand's sword referenced
above) the Follins Pond "Norse site", the so-called battle axes
which turn out to be American made lumbering axes, etc., etc.
<snip>
> >Doug
>
> Eric Stevens
>
> My new email address:- eric.s...@sum.co.nz
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
Steve Marcus
>
> George,
> how on Earth can you without looking at all evidence believe it possible to
> from a far distance without all photos, maps, documentations from 507 AD btw
> believe that those we have had access the last years together with the
> information+ photo+ the affidavits by Scholars from Ph.D. up to Prof.
> presented by Holand in his book can't hold up to normal Academic standard?
>
> In fact George the standard presented by Holand is above normal Academic
> standard used in almost ALL dissertations before 1970!!!!
>
> Please George try to get hold of Holand's book:
> Norse Discoveries & Explorations in America 982-1362.
> Read the text with open mind, ask any question you want and I will promise
> you that it's possible to prove that the artifacts are genuine, Scandinavian
> and that not even you after that study can object to that conclusion. Please
> read it first, I have promised to send you several files with other
> documentation when you have read the text.
>
> Don't act like a 5-year old boy shouting: "It's not true, it's not true" be
> a man and don't pretend you know before you have checked all information
> available.
Inger,
What does Holand's book say about the Ulen sword>
>
> Inger E
Steve Marcus
>
> Daryl
<snip>
> The big deal is that there in Holand's book exists a confirmation from an
> official Geologist that the later sea had three skerries. The big deal is
> more than that, but I rest for now!
But Inger, aren't you aware that Dr. Nielsen's latest
"translation" of the KRS states that the word is "shelters", not
"skerries"??
Doug Weller
> Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 07:39:53 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Reasons for not trusting Bigitta Wallace in these matters have been
> > very recently posted in this news group. Namely, she is not reluctant
> > to cite most dubious sources to support her arguments.
> >
>
> Now look who's talking!
>
George Black
>
> George,
> for your information, and others, there are as much documentation,
> affidavits(how do you spell that btw) as in L'anse Medow. Old documentation,
> written and verbal taped on band, old written vidimetation of ages of the
> found artifacts - new vidimitation is underway. Most of the items found in
> two countys. Both close to watersystem that had, observe had, waterlevels as
> late as 1910 when some lakes where drained(observe that when I used sea as
> the word I used it due to the fact that US-geologists in their statements
> from 1914-1930 used that word).
You really have problems with the conceptual possibilities of the word
NO don't you!
Is there any particular part of the word that you do not understand?
there have been NO settlements contemporary with these 'artifacts'
there is NO evidence of Scandinavian incursions into these areas until
the 1840's.
an affidavit means diddley squat when there is NO evidence backing the
position.
Your claim as to the reason you used the word sea doesn't wash.
Seasonallake/flood plain would be the term used by geologists!
Mark Greene
>Would anyone please tell me how
>someone calling him/herself specialist and Scholar of Medieval
>History/Archaeology can have overlooked the Alexandria Halberd; the Lake
>Nipigon Find and the Swedish and Norse battle axes found near Brandon,
>Minnesota. There are many more interesting items, for example several
>medieval Scandinavian swords...... the latest supposed to have been found in
>1960, I write supposed because I know of one found in the 1990's......
>
>Please explain to me how any Scholar worth this degree upto now have managed
>to explain away those items.
>
Pre-columbian iron was of notoriously poor quality, with some of it going as
low as 50% impure do to the relatively primitive smelting techniques.
Consequentially not much of it has survived to the present day.
While I've not read about the axes in question, if they were in anything but
very rusted, very fragile condition, the likelihood of them being pre-columbian
is practically zero.
--
mark
Quantum Express: When you absolutely, positively, don't know
where it's going or when it needs to be there. - RazorJAK in a.g.
Inger E
are you or aren't you able to read Brittish English??? There are remains of
contemporary longhouses not far from the finding areas, in fact a bit down
the waterway eastward. Those longhouses I have refered to several times
before since there is good documentation for them. Archaeologist have dated
them to three periods 800-1000, 1000-1200 and a later 1200-1400 AD. Nota
bene and this is essential those longhouses who were said by some of you
here to be maid by the Iroquese were made AFTER the Iroquese left the area,
which once if you remember it was confirmed by tk. He confirmed that the
Iroquesean left the area in or around 800 AD....
Oh, there is much much more..... you will be sorry in the end to have
written things like those you wrote below. You are wrong in every sentence
of the world you will see.
Inger E
"George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C367DDF...@ihug.co.nz...
Inger E
here is a quotation. (I have more documentation for you among the files I
plan to send directly to you.)
text within [ ] are notes made by me.
One Holland's text/assumption page 211-212 second paragraph ff + note 11 and
12
"The explorers, [KRS-party assumed but not confirmed] upon leaving this
former island"
continued below the [ ]-inserted part
[the skerries discussed in an lake which before it was drained in 1906 had
no out let, the former sea is discussed and also confirmed in written quoted
affidavits from Alexandria Minnesota June 18, 1930(page 207-208) by Paul R
Johnson County Surveyor and Geologist in Douglas County Minnesota]
quoation continues:
"with it's little monument[mooring] fixed near the apex, must have gone
eastward. This is indicated, not only by the fact that this is the general
direction which they wished to follow[Holand's assumption.], but also
because in this direction they found a string of lakes through which they
could pass with almost no portaging.11 For about twenty-five miles they
could continue by water until they reached Lake Carlos, three miles north of
the present city of Alexandria. Lake Carlos connects with Lake L'Homme Dieu
which in turn connects with Lake Geneva. This lake extends southward for two
miles, where it receives the water of Lake Victoria, which lake has the
shape of a crescent. Following the eastern branch one reaches Lake Jessie, a
small lake about a mile long. On the eastern shore of this lake, near it's
southern end, at the bottom of a steep hillside, is still another mooring
stone12 This stone may be seen five miles southeast of Alexandria, Minn."
end of quotation.
Inger E
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:MPG.169fe6d0d...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Eric Stevens
I have never to my knowledge cited anyone who has been demonstrated by
a reputable person to be a deliberate liar. The same cannot be said of
Birgitta Wallace.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <3C360647...@start.no>, eg...@start.no says...
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 07:39:53 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>[Note, the sentences below are Eric's]
>> > Reasons for not trusting Bigitta Wallace in these matters have been
>> > very recently posted in this news group. Namely, she is not reluctant
>> > to cite most dubious sources to support her arguments.
>> >
>>
>> Now look who's talking!
>>
>Is this the ad hominem Eric was warning about? :-)
This is not an ad homimen. It is a matter fact. It is clear that
Birgitta Wallace has been happy to rely on Wahlgren who Robert H Hall
has shown to be massively dishonest in the matter of the KRS. Pointing
this out is not an ad hominem.
Eric Stevens
<barbm...@erols.com> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 07:39:53 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <TM9Z7.1221$n4.4...@newsc.telia.net>, inger_e....@telia.com
>> >says...
>> >>
>
>> >
>> >Birgitta Wallace adds that this axe, the axe head found in Mora also claimed by
>> >Holand to be medieval, and others are early American lumbering tools called
>> >socket paring axes. Of course this type of early axe had a European origin,
>> >but are probably American made because they have a weight added to the butt for
>> >balance, an American innovation.
>>
>> Reasons for not trusting Bigitta Wallace in these matters have been
>> very recently posted in this news group. Namely, she is not reluctant
>> to cite most dubious sources to support her arguments.
>
>Oh come on, you dishonest SOB. Your "man" Holand is infamous in
>scholastic circles for having championed a particular sword as
>being a pre-Columbian Norse artifact,
Dishonest SOB yourself, you petulant weasel. Holand is no more my man
than is Pliny the Elder.
> ... when in fact the sword was
>of American manufacture, circa 1800, and _bore the freakin'
>maker's mark showing that it had been made in Philadelphia_.
>When I have cited this tidbit in the past, you accused me of
>character assassination, and opined that it was wrong to
>disqualify all of Holand's allegations based upon this one
>incident.
>
>Now you would do the same thing to an accredited Ph.D in the
>field, based upon your quibble with respect to the weight that
>she would give to a particular source?
>
>You own a copy of "Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga" (unless you
>lied about ordering one and receiving it). Take a peek at pages
>374-384, and in particular, pages 375 and 377, assuming your
>self-proclaimed "open mind" is in fact really so open. The
>latter two pages explain in language that even _you_ should be
>able to understand why the axes and armor and halberds, etc.,
>etc. that have been discovered in North America (apparently as
>part of a cottage industry peculiar to areas of North America
>that just happen to have large numbers of 19th century Nordic
>immigrant settlements coincidentally at or near to the site of
>these "discoveries") have not been accepted as being valid
>pre-Columbian Norse artifacts.
Little snivelling .... were we ever discussing these objects?
Inger E
has recently been shown to one Scholar specialist in the Medieval Age here
in Sweden. Since I don't "own" the mail he sent to a friend of mine(only
have a forwarded copy) this is what I can give you all today:
"Bengt-Ake handed me copies of your pictures and there is one picture of
axes. The broad edge shaped ones was used for shaping the timbers when
building a blockhouse and the some of the narrow edge shaped for cutting the
joints." quoted from text by Scholar at Cultural Dept, Länstyrelsen
Linköping in a mail to a friend of mine in South Dakota.
After the period of longhouses blockhouses was build in several areas here
in Sweden during the Medieval Age. In Norway as well.
You will all have full documentation in due time for you to see that Mrs
Wallace assumptions are just that assumptions out in the blue!
Inger E
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:oohd3uo6209pps6c3...@4ax.com...
Doug Weller
says...
>
> Doug,
> here is a quotation. (I have more documentation for you among the files I
> plan to send directly to you.)
>
> text within [ ] are notes made by me.
> One Holland's text/assumption page 211-212 second paragraph ff + note 11 and
> 12
> "The explorers, [KRS-party assumed but not confirmed] upon leaving this
> former island"
> continued below the [ ]-inserted part
> [the skerries discussed in an lake which before it was drained in 1906 had
> no out let, the former sea is discussed and also confirmed in written quoted
> affidavits from Alexandria Minnesota June 18, 1930(page 207-208) by Paul R
> Johnson County Surveyor and Geologist in Douglas County Minnesota]
>
>
Cormorant Lake as related to the KRS, then there's the question of whether the
KRS mentions skerries at all. All needs to be dealt with.
Steve Marcus
>
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 18:08:13 -0800, Steve Marcus
> <barbm...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >Eric Stevens wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 07:39:53 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <TM9Z7.1221$n4.4...@newsc.telia.net>, inger_e....@telia.com
> >> >says...
> >> >>
> >
> >> >
> >> >Birgitta Wallace adds that this axe, the axe head found in Mora also claimed by
> >> >Holand to be medieval, and others are early American lumbering tools called
> >> >socket paring axes. Of course this type of early axe had a European origin,
> >> >but are probably American made because they have a weight added to the butt for
> >> >balance, an American innovation.
> >>
> >> Reasons for not trusting Bigitta Wallace in these matters have been
> >> very recently posted in this news group. Namely, she is not reluctant
> >> to cite most dubious sources to support her arguments.
> >
> >Oh come on, you dishonest SOB. Your "man" Holand is infamous in
> >scholastic circles for having championed a particular sword as
> >being a pre-Columbian Norse artifact,
>
> Dishonest SOB yourself, you petulant weasel. Holand is no more my man
> than is Pliny the Elder.
Yeah, right. Do I need to dredge up the posts from Google in
which you defend Holand? Do I need to dredge up the posts in
which you cite Holand with approval? And with respect to the
discussion of "medieval axes", other than posting, in effect,
"Wallace wrong (not to be trusted), which implies Holand right
(to be trusted)", what _is_ your take on the merits of the
authenticity of those axes?
>
> > ... when in fact the sword was
> >of American manufacture, circa 1800, and _bore the freakin'
> >maker's mark showing that it had been made in Philadelphia_.
> >When I have cited this tidbit in the past, you accused me of
> >character assassination, and opined that it was wrong to
> >disqualify all of Holand's allegations based upon this one
> >incident.
> >
> >Now you would do the same thing to an accredited Ph.D in the
> >field, based upon your quibble with respect to the weight that
> >she would give to a particular source?
> >
> >You own a copy of "Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga" (unless you
> >lied about ordering one and receiving it). Take a peek at pages
> >374-384, and in particular, pages 375 and 377, assuming your
> >self-proclaimed "open mind" is in fact really so open. The
> >latter two pages explain in language that even _you_ should be
> >able to understand why the axes and armor and halberds, etc.,
> >etc. that have been discovered in North America (apparently as
> >part of a cottage industry peculiar to areas of North America
> >that just happen to have large numbers of 19th century Nordic
> >immigrant settlements coincidentally at or near to the site of
> >these "discoveries") have not been accepted as being valid
> >pre-Columbian Norse artifacts.
>
> Little snivelling .... were we ever discussing these objects?
Moron. What is the title of this thread? What is the English
definition of "Norse finds"? Of course these sorts of
"artifacts" were being discussed on this thread; you posted a
(brief) defense of Inger's position re the authenticity of these
types of "artifacts" as set forth in her posts, and have posted
longer "defenses" of like positions in the past. And in doing
so, you and your so-called "open mind", ignored the reference
cited above and its content as discussed below.
Steve
Steve Marcus
>
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 20:45:11 +0100, Hammerstad <eg...@start.no> wrote:
>
> >Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 07:39:53 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Reasons for not trusting Bigitta Wallace in these matters have been
> >> very recently posted in this news group. Namely, she is not reluctant
> >> to cite most dubious sources to support her arguments.
> >>
> >
> >Now look who's talking!
> >
> >
> I have never to my knowledge cited anyone who has been demonstrated by
> a reputable person to be a deliberate liar. The same cannot be said of
> Birgitta Wallace.
>
You have knowingly cited Holand. That man took an artifact that
had a maker's mark on it indicating that it had been made in
Philadelphia and claimed that it was a pre-Columbian Norse
artifact, a fact also known to you. Even assuming that this
"error" on Holand's part was not "deliberate", (an assumption
that is far from being a safe one), it is clear that you have no
qualms about citing the work of someone who is at least as
untrustworthy as you allege Wallace to be.
> Eric Stevens
>
> My new email address:- eric.s...@sum.co.nz
Steve
Uwe Müller
"Mark Greene" <prg...@aol.combustion> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20020104235539...@mb-mi.aol.com...
> snip >
> While I've not read about the axes in question, if they were in anything
but
> very rusted, very fragile condition, the likelihood of them being
pre-columbian
> is practically zero.
Why do You think so?
Have Fun
Uwe Mueller
Inger E
the time we discussed is far beyond 70 years ago..... so a 70 year old
confirmation incl. photos which confirms a map from 1895 which I found the
other year is enough to say that at least the waterlevel that have been
excluded by Scholars as late as last year existed in the 19th Century.....
but the lake is gone now due to drainage.....
Inger E
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:MPG.16a125b91...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Doug Weller
inger_e....@telia.com says...
[SNIP]
>
> You will all have full documentation in due time for you to see that Mrs
> Wallace assumptions are just that assumptions out in the blue!
>
>
You've mentioned her 'assumptions' more than once. My post wasn't about
assumptions but about evidence from sources she had cited. I see in the bit
you quoted from Eric that he is attacking her on the grounds of her sources:
"Namely, she is not reluctant to cite most dubious sources to support her
arguments." is what he wrote. I don't know what sources he has in mind
(probably if I went back to Michael Zalar's posts I could find them), and some
may be dubious. But this is a rather broadside attack (and assumes that she
knew they were dubious at the time she used them -- I'd like some proof about
that also) and is, to repeat myself, the ad hominem he was warning about -- or
something of the same sort. He is trying to get us to ignore Wallace by
smearing her reputation. In any case, I have no reason to think that the
sources that I cited from her are dubious. They may have been overtaken by
later sources with more evidence, but that of course is not the same thing.
George Black
>
> George,
> are you or aren't you able to read Brittish English??? There are remains of
> contemporary longhouses not far from the finding areas, in fact a bit down
> the waterway eastward. Those longhouses I have refered to several times
> before since there is good documentation for them. Archaeologist have dated
> them to three periods 800-1000, 1000-1200 and a later 1200-1400 AD. Nota
> bene and this is essential those longhouses who were said by some of you
> here to be maid by the Iroquese were made AFTER the Iroquese left the area,
> which once if you remember it was confirmed by tk. He confirmed that the
> Iroquesean left the area in or around 800 AD....
>
> Oh, there is much much more..... you will be sorry in the end to have
> written things like those you wrote below. You are wrong in every sentence
> of the world you will see.
In a word. Crap!!!!!
You have never, ever, ever, ever produced anything of merit to prove
your position.
People in Sweden who speak Swedish contest your translation claims.
I would like to be proven wrong as to the great Scandinavian mapping
expedition into the depths of Minnesta to make way for the colonisers
some centuries later but betcha it's just another smokescreen !
I usually work with the English language 'Brittish English' is a new
one on me
Thelonghouses are NOT Scandinavian. Were they there would be artifacts
at the sites that would be of Scandinavian origin.
They are NOT, they are native American in construction with associated
native American artifacts!!
A bit down the waterway ??
What waterway?? How far is a bit??
Sorry but the concept of 'longhouses' is quite well established among
the tribes of the native American peoples.
Look up the Confederation of Tribes especially digs carried out in
conjuction with the histories of that union!
Inger E
when the Axes were found, over a period of 120 years btw, they all have been
rusty or inside a hard rusty earth-piece hard as stone.
There are swords as well.....
Inger E
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@snafu.de> skrev i meddelandet
news:a17b4c$fu3$1...@unlisys.unlisys.net...
Inger E
if things have worked out you will have received a mail from South Dakota,
in a short time you will be receiving detailed information from an other
person. Neither of those persons nor Eric is among the Scholars I refered
to. You will have more documentation from Scholars in Scandinavia in due
time.
Inger E
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:MPG.16a11b458...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Eric Stevens
<barbm...@erols.com> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 20:45:11 +0100, Hammerstad <eg...@start.no> wrote:
>>
>> >Eric Stevens wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 07:39:53 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Reasons for not trusting Bigitta Wallace in these matters have been
>> >> very recently posted in this news group. Namely, she is not reluctant
>> >> to cite most dubious sources to support her arguments.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Now look who's talking!
>> >
>> >
>> I have never to my knowledge cited anyone who has been demonstrated by
>> a reputable person to be a deliberate liar. The same cannot be said of
>> Birgitta Wallace.
>>
>
>You have knowingly cited Holand. That man took an artifact that
>had a maker's mark on it indicating that it had been made in
>Philadelphia and claimed that it was a pre-Columbian Norse
>artifact, a fact also known to you. Even assuming that this
>"error" on Holand's part was not "deliberate", (an assumption
>that is far from being a safe one), it is clear that you have no
>qualms about citing the work of someone who is at least as
>untrustworthy as you allege Wallace to be.
1. I have never cited Holand as I have no first hand knowledge of his
work. I may have picked up on what others have written about him.
2. You have no evidence to support your implication that Holand
deliberately lied rather than merely making a mistake.
3. If you had read Robert H. Hall "The Kensington Rune Stone:
Authentic and Important" you would realise that Wahlgren's
academic credibility in this area is destroyed for all practical
purposes. There can be few academics who have warranted having a
person of the standing of Robert H. Hall devoting an entire
chapter in a book to showing not just that they were wrong but
that they utterly dishonest.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <rHCZ7.9302$l93.2...@newsb.telia.net>,
>inger_e....@telia.com says...
>
>[SNIP]
>>
>> You will all have full documentation in due time for you to see that Mrs
>> Wallace assumptions are just that assumptions out in the blue!
>>
>>
>You've mentioned her 'assumptions' more than once. My post wasn't about
>assumptions but about evidence from sources she had cited. I see in the bit
>you quoted from Eric that he is attacking her on the grounds of her sources:
>"Namely, she is not reluctant to cite most dubious sources to support her
>arguments." is what he wrote. I don't know what sources he has in mind
>(probably if I went back to Michael Zalar's posts I could find them), and some
>may be dubious. But this is a rather broadside attack (and assumes that she
>knew they were dubious at the time she used them -- I'd like some proof about
>that also) and is, to repeat myself, the ad hominem he was warning about -- or
>something of the same sort. He is trying to get us to ignore Wallace by
>smearing her reputation. In any case, I have no reason to think that the
>sources that I cited from her are dubious. They may have been overtaken by
>later sources with more evidence, but that of course is not the same thing.
I was specifically referring to Wallaces reliance on Wahlgren as an
authority at a date after Robert H. Hall had shown Wahlgren to have
been grossly dishonest in his dealings with the KRS. It is almost
incredible to suggest that Wallace would not have been aware of what
Hall had published.
And yes, I am trying to get people to, not necessarily ignore Wallace,
but to treat her with extreme caution. As Doug knows, I do this with
all people who have demonstrated a disregard for the truth.
Steve Marcus
You have cited Holand several times, and certainly "picked up on"
what others have written about him, if by "picked up on", you
mean "not disagreed with the merits of positions that others have
stated were supported by or advocated by Holand.
>
> 2. You have no evidence to support your implication that Holand
> deliberately lied rather than merely making a mistake.
I have as much evidence for my "implication" that Holand
deliberately lied as you have for your statement that Wallace
lied.
>
> 3. If you had read Robert H. Hall "The Kensington Rune Stone:
> Authentic and Important" you would realise that Wahlgren's
> academic credibility in this area is destroyed for all practical
> purposes. There can be few academics who have warranted having a
> person of the standing of Robert H. Hall devoting an entire
> chapter in a book to showing not just that they were wrong but
> that they utterly dishonest.
This is an incredible statement. You obviously do not know the
difference between "utterly dishonest", "honest error",
disagreements between academics, and "perhaps the source that
Eric Stevens favors might just be in the wrong", meaning that as
between Hall and Wallace, you credit Hall for no particular
reason. Meanwhile, Wallace is an accredited Ph.D in the field,
while Holand's qualifications in the field seem to be that he was
of Nordic descent, and he loved a dollar.
>
> Eric Stevens
>
> My new email address:- eric.s...@sum.co.nz
Steve
Inger E
"Steve Marcus" <barbm...@erols.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C37F654...@erols.com...
Steve,
it's two different thing talking about evidence that a person delibratly
lied and talking about a Scholar's usage of sources being questioned,
since you say that you have evidence against Holand, would you please let us
see those "cards" that you say indicate that he delibrately lied. Would you
further more tell us which item you refer to in order for others to check
Holand's writing to see if he himself have been or haven't been mislead of
other person/-s Scholar or non-Scholar.
Inger E
Eric Stevens
<barbm...@erols.com> wrote:
>> 1. I have never cited Holand as I have no first hand knowledge of his
>> work. I may have picked up on what others have written about him.
>
>You have cited Holand several times, and certainly "picked up on"
>what others have written about him, if by "picked up on", you
>mean "not disagreed with the merits of positions that others have
>stated were supported by or advocated by Holand.
No I do not by 'picked up on' mean the bizarre interpretatoin you have
chosen to place on the words. I have NO first hand knowledge of what
Holand wrote. I may have followed up what others wrote from their
knowledge of Holand with comments of my own.
>
>>
>> 2. You have no evidence to support your implication that Holand
>> deliberately lied rather than merely making a mistake.
>
>I have as much evidence for my "implication" that Holand
>deliberately lied as you have for your statement that Wallace
>lied.
Great. Please cite the article in which I said or implied "Wallace
lied". Please remember you are still under oath.
>
>>
>> 3. If you had read Robert H. Hall "The Kensington Rune Stone:
>> Authentic and Important" you would realise that Wahlgren's
>> academic credibility in this area is destroyed for all practical
>> purposes. There can be few academics who have warranted having a
>> person of the standing of Robert H. Hall devoting an entire
>> chapter in a book to showing not just that they were wrong but
>> that they utterly dishonest.
>
>This is an incredible statement. You obviously do not know the
>difference between "utterly dishonest", "honest error",
>disagreements between academics, and "perhaps the source that
>Eric Stevens favors might just be in the wrong", meaning that as
>between Hall and Wallace, you credit Hall for no particular
>reason. Meanwhile, Wallace is an accredited Ph.D in the field,
>while Holand's qualifications in the field seem to be that he was
>of Nordic descent, and he loved a dollar.
You clearly have not read Hall. Once you start trying to resolve
arguments by throwing qualifications into the balance, you will have
to take into account that Hall's qualifications include not only an
accredited PhD, but a tenured full professor and a Professor Emeritus
(do you need me to explain that last to you?). As to your comments
about Holand, what evidence do you have to justify making such attacks
on a dead man?
Steve Marcus
If I were to show you an artifact and claim that it was a
pre-Columbian Norse sword, without checking whether it bore any
resemblance to a pre-Columbian Norse sword in terms of size,
weight and design by seeking to compare it to known examples of a
pre-Columbian Norse sword, what would you consider me to be
doing, deliberately lying, or simply being sloppy?
If it were also the case that no pre-Columbian Norse artifacts
were found with the sword, and that the context in which the
sword was found was not preserved, would I have been deliberately
lying, or simply being sloppy?
If it then came to light that the sword in fact had the maker's
mark on it which showed that it was made in Philadelphia in 1805,
would you consider my claim that the sword was pre-Columbian to
be deliberately lying or simply being sloppy?
It is easy to answer "sloppy". Yet Inger, I am sure that you are
well aware of the standards in science by which "scholars"
unearth and investigate artifacts as evidence of what happened in
the past. Scholars don't shoot from the hip; they investigate
context, they compare their artifact to known examples, they
examine it as closely as possible. If they are not experts in
the given field, as I would not have been, they seek expert
advice, and have experts clean the artifact to the extent
possible, and if after consulting the experts, a scholar is told
"we don't know", then the scholar seeks further advice. If the
scholar cannot get a clear answer, then the scholar publishes the
find and advances a hypothesis, but does not make a claim which
the experts themselves are unable to confirm. And therefore,
Inger, if you think that in the above examples, I would have
merely been "sloppy" in claiming that my find was pre-Columbian,
then you must ignore the fact that _I too am well aware of the
standards in science by which scholars do their work_, just as
Mr. Holand undoubtedly was.
So Inger, by simple logic, I find that Mr. Holand was being more
than "sloppy" with respect to the Ulen sword. He was
deliberately ignoring basic standards of science and scholarship
in claiming that the sword was pre-Columbian. He did not compare
the sword with known examples of the types of sword that he
claimed it to be, or have it so compared. He did not consider
meaning of the context in which it was discovered (beyond that it
was found in Minnesota, near enough in his view of things to the
KRS for the sword to "be" a Norse artifact), the condition of the
metal of the sword, and the fact that the sword (as would any
artifact) needed to be closely examined and properly cleaned by
experts in order to make identification of it as easy and as
accurate as possible.
Thus Inger, I consider the Ulen sword to be clear evidence of a
"mistake" that Holand _deliberately engaged in making_, in the
sense that it was a "mistake" made by knowingly engaging in bad
practices and shooting from the hip, rather than by doing proper
investigation. It is the same sort of "mistake" that Eric
Stevens made when he posted his "Yipee, now we have a context for
the KRS post" when the so-called "AVM runestone" was discovered
last year, but had not yet been properly examined and
investigated. The difference is that all Eric had to gain by
deliberately ignoring the need for proper examination and
investigation was a moment's gratification at having something to
"prove the KRS authentic" and to be able to crow about it on
Usenet. Thus we can excuse what I regard as Eric's deliberate
ignorance. Holand, however, had some things to gain by
deliberately making a claim that he _had to know was premature at
best, and quite likely to be wrong at worse_ regarding the Ulen
sword. Those things were money, and acclaim for his leading role
in the "pre-Columbian visitation by the Norse movement".
I indeed consider Holand's position on the Ulen sword to have
been "a deliberate lie". He and his supporters may choose to
claim that it was an honest mistake, or a difference of opinion
among scholars. It was a mistake no honest scholar could have
made, because it was made without regard for appropriate
investigation and procedures that Holand surely was aware of.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
Steve Marcus
>
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 23:01:40 -0800, Steve Marcus
> <barbm...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >> 1. I have never cited Holand as I have no first hand knowledge of his
> >> work. I may have picked up on what others have written about him.
> >
> >You have cited Holand several times, and certainly "picked up on"
> >what others have written about him, if by "picked up on", you
> >mean "not disagreed with the merits of positions that others have
> >stated were supported by or advocated by Holand.
>
> No I do not by 'picked up on' mean the bizarre interpretatoin you have
> chosen to place on the words. I have NO first hand knowledge of what
> Holand wrote. I may have followed up what others wrote from their
> knowledge of Holand with comments of my own.
In which comments you tended to agree with Holand's positions.
And in which comments you certainly did not take the view that
based upon Holand's treatment of the Ulen sword and "crusader's
mentality" with respect to pre-Columbian Nordic visitations to
North America, it would be wise to take Holand with a large grain
of salt.
But that my second sentence above is precisely what you did with
respect to Wallace.
> >
> >>
> >> 2. You have no evidence to support your implication that Holand
> >> deliberately lied rather than merely making a mistake.
> >
> >I have as much evidence for my "implication" that Holand
> >deliberately lied as you have for your statement that Wallace
> >lied.
>
> Great. Please cite the article in which I said or implied "Wallace
> lied". Please remember you are still under oath.
Posted by you on 1/4/2002: "Reasons for not trusting Bigitta
Wallace in these matters have been very recently posted in this
news group. Namely, she is not reluctant to cite most dubious
sources to support her arguments."
Posted by you on 1/5/2002: "This is not an ad homimen. It is a
matter fact. It is clear that Birgitta Wallace has been happy to
rely on Wahlgren who Robert H Hall has shown to be massively
dishonest in the matter of the KRS. Pointing this out is not an
ad hominem."
Posted by you on 1/6/2002: "I was specifically referring to
Wallaces reliance on Wahlgren as an been grossly dishonest in his
dealings with the KRS. It is almost incredible to suggest that
Wallace would not have been aware of what Hall had published.
And yes, I am trying to get people to, not necessarily ignore
Wallace, but to treat her with extreme caution. As Doug knows, I
do this with all people who have demonstrated a disregard for the
truth."
Now Eric, I don't propose to get involved in one of your infamous
attempts to twist the English language out all clear and direct
understanding in an attempt to defend the above posts. I'll be
direct: any Ph.D is charged with knowing what the standards of
scholarship are. A Ph.D who knowingly cites dubious sources is,
in effect lying. And if you disagree, then you are simply stuck
with the last quoted sentence above in which you say this re
Wallace: "As Doug knows, I do this with all people who have
demonstrated a disregard for the truth." That is calling her a
liar, pure and simple, and please do not waste bandwidth
disputing it. Be a man for once and concede that you wrote what
you wrote and that you meant what you wrote.
> >
> >>
> >> 3. If you had read Robert H. Hall "The Kensington Rune Stone:
> >> Authentic and Important" you would realise that Wahlgren's
> >> academic credibility in this area is destroyed for all practical
> >> purposes. There can be few academics who have warranted having a
> >> person of the standing of Robert H. Hall devoting an entire
> >> chapter in a book to showing not just that they were wrong but
> >> that they utterly dishonest.
> >
> >This is an incredible statement. You obviously do not know the
> >difference between "utterly dishonest", "honest error",
> >disagreements between academics, and "perhaps the source that
> >Eric Stevens favors might just be in the wrong", meaning that as
> >between Hall and Wallace, you credit Hall for no particular
> >reason. Meanwhile, Wallace is an accredited Ph.D in the field,
> >while Holand's qualifications in the field seem to be that he was
> >of Nordic descent, and he loved a dollar.
>
> You clearly have not read Hall. Once you start trying to resolve
> arguments by throwing qualifications into the balance, you will have
> to take into account that Hall's qualifications include not only an
> accredited PhD, but a tenured full professor and a Professor Emeritus
> (do you need me to explain that last to you?). As to your comments
> about Holand, what evidence do you have to justify making such attacks
> on a dead man?
>
Read my latest reply to Inger.
> Eric Stevens
>
> My new email address:- eric.s...@sum.co.nz
Steve
Inger E. Johansson
news:3C389296...@erols.com...
> Inger:
>
> If I were to show you an artifact and claim that it was a
> pre-Columbian Norse sword, without checking whether it bore any
> resemblance to a pre-Columbian Norse sword in terms of size,
> weight and design by seeking to compare it to known examples of a
> pre-Columbian Norse sword, what would you consider me to be
> doing, deliberately lying, or simply being sloppy?
I don't know which sword you are talking about,
but I can tell you this:
all swords, including the broken sword, that are shown on photos in the
photocopy from Holand's book resemble to 100% swords from before 1520 which you
today can see in a room at Linköping's Länsmuseum in Linköping Östergötland.
Thus I would like you to specify two details:
which sword are you talking about, where was it supposed to have been found,
can you prove that it's faked and that Holand knew that?
Your statement regarding size weight and design might be correct for
pre-Columbian Norse swords, but it certainly isn't when it comes to swords made
in Östergötland Sweden in the triangle Linköping-Rök-Motala if you are talking
about any of the swords I have in the photocopies!!!
Inger E
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Steve Marcus
You asked me a specific question, and I gave you a specific
answer. Your question:
"it's two different thing talking about evidence that a person
delibratly lied and talking about a Scholar's usage of sources
being questioned, since you say that you have evidence against
Holand, would you please let us
see those "cards" that you say indicate that he delibrately
lied."
I was not talking about "any" sword. I was answering what you
asked above by using a hypothetical based upon the way that
Holand dealt with the Ulen sword.
It is clear that you either didn't understand my post, or are
choosing to ignore it.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
George Black
>
> "Steve Marcus" <barbm...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3C389296...@erols.com...
>
> > Inger:
> >
> > If I were to show you an artifact and claim that it was a
> > pre-Columbian Norse sword, without checking whether it bore any
> > resemblance to a pre-Columbian Norse sword in terms of size,
> > weight and design by seeking to compare it to known examples of a
> > pre-Columbian Norse sword, what would you consider me to be
> > doing, deliberately lying, or simply being sloppy?
>
> I don't know which sword you are talking about,
You have been pushing this 'sword=KRS' for quite a while now.
Even I am aware of the sword in question as being 'wrong'
> but I can tell you this:
> all swords, including the broken sword, that are shown on photos in the
> photocopy from Holand's book resemble to 100% swords from before 1520 which you
> today can see in a room at Linköping's Länsmuseum in Linköping Östergötland.
> Thus I would like you to specify two details:
> which sword are you talking about, where was it supposed to have been found,
> can you prove that it's faked and that Holand knew that?
Were I a Lithics expert I would be able to identify any edged stone
tool, its date and its area of origin.
Now how is it so difficult for some-one to identify a sword??
> Your statement regarding size weight and design might be correct for
> pre-Columbian Norse swords, but it certainly isn't when it comes to swords made
> in Östergötland Sweden in the triangle Linköping-Rök-Motala if you are talking
> about any of the swords I have in the photocopies!!!
Are we back to the peculiarities of Swedish scholarship and archaeology
so quickly in this new year??
Doug Weller
says...
> if things have worked out you will have received a mail from South Dakota,
> in a short time you will be receiving detailed information from an other
> person.
>
Inger E
I have understand your answer now, but I still can't find any referenses,
Ulen sword looks exactly like the type of sword which existed before
Columbus time among some of the King of Sweden's Noblemans men. As you know
King Magnus Eriksson had his men in Bergen, in Iceland and Greenland. Among
them also at least two known nobleman. So if your don't come up with any
ref, quotation etc which proves that
a) the sword actually was made much later
and that
b) Holand knew that it was a faked sword
I can't see that you have proven anything. You see the simple fact that the
sword might not look like Norwegian Pre-Columbian swords isn't enough. The
Norse rarely made swords before Viking Age and their sword during the Viking
Age wasn't made from iron which had been worked with the same way as the
double-egged and double sided swords that craftsmen inside the triangle in
Östergötland I refer to started to make from 350 AD(OBSERVE I wrote 350 AD)
much much earlier than other doublesided and double -egged sword were made
anywhere else in the world and Steve by 14th Century some of the swords made
for the Folkunga Dynasty's men looked alike the Ulen sword. I must say that
if you can prove that the sword actually is faked I wonder how on earth
someone outside Östergötland had the knowledge to do so even in our days
because I never seen anyone like it among the copied swords from the
medieval Age.
Please send ref and/or quotation, it needn't be to URL on net.
Inger E
"Steve Marcus" <barbm...@erols.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C38B824...@erols.com...
Eric Stevens
<barbm...@erols.com> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 23:01:40 -0800, Steve Marcus
>> <barbm...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> 1. I have never cited Holand as I have no first hand knowledge of his
>> >> work. I may have picked up on what others have written about him.
>> >
>> >You have cited Holand several times, and certainly "picked up on"
>> >what others have written about him, if by "picked up on", you
>> >mean "not disagreed with the merits of positions that others have
>> >stated were supported by or advocated by Holand.
>>
>> No I do not by 'picked up on' mean the bizarre interpretatoin you have
>> chosen to place on the words. I have NO first hand knowledge of what
>> Holand wrote. I may have followed up what others wrote from their
>> knowledge of Holand with comments of my own.
>
>In which comments you tended to agree with Holand's positions.
>And in which comments you certainly did not take the view that
>based upon Holand's treatment of the Ulen sword and "crusader's
>mentality" with respect to pre-Columbian Nordic visitations to
>North America, it would be wise to take Holand with a large grain
>of salt.
>
>But that my second sentence above is precisely what you did with
>respect to Wallace.
????? Unintelligible.
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 2. You have no evidence to support your implication that Holand
>> >> deliberately lied rather than merely making a mistake.
>> >
>> >I have as much evidence for my "implication" that Holand
>> >deliberately lied as you have for your statement that Wallace
>> >lied.
>>
>> Great. Please cite the article in which I said or implied "Wallace
>> lied". Please remember you are still under oath.
>
>Posted by you on 1/4/2002: "Reasons for not trusting Bigitta
>Wallace in these matters have been very recently posted in this
>news group. Namely, she is not reluctant to cite most dubious
>sources to support her arguments."
Wallace truthfully quotes Wahlgren when constructing her argument. She
must know that Wahlgren's credibility has been (at the very least)
considerably called into question by Hall. That she will still quote
Wahlgren in these circumstances makes her an unreliable source.
>
>Posted by you on 1/5/2002: "This is not an ad homimen. It is a
>matter fact. It is clear that Birgitta Wallace has been happy to
>rely on Wahlgren who Robert H Hall has shown to be massively
>dishonest in the matter of the KRS. Pointing this out is not an
>ad hominem."
See above.
>
>Posted by you on 1/6/2002: "I was specifically referring to
>Wallaces reliance on Wahlgren as an been grossly dishonest in his
>dealings with the KRS. It is almost incredible to suggest that
>Wallace would not have been aware of what Hall had published.
See above.
>
>And yes, I am trying to get people to, not necessarily ignore
>Wallace, but to treat her with extreme caution. As Doug knows, I
>do this with all people who have demonstrated a disregard for the
>truth."
See above.
>
>Now Eric, I don't propose to get involved in one of your infamous
>attempts to twist the English language out all clear and direct
>understanding in an attempt to defend the above posts. I'll be
>direct: any Ph.D is charged with knowing what the standards of
>scholarship are. A Ph.D who knowingly cites dubious sources is,
>in effect lying.
Aah - you are extending my claim. You may well be right. The
obligation to deal honestly with the facts extends beyond Ph.Ds (and
lawyers) to ordinary people in these news groups. If you are correct
in your argumen, by relying on Wahlgren, Wallace has shown herself to
be a liar. If you apply your logic consistently you will no longer
rely on Wallace.
>And if you disagree, then you are simply stuck
>with the last quoted sentence above in which you say this re
>Wallace: "As Doug knows, I do this with all people who have
>demonstrated a disregard for the truth." That is calling her a
>liar, pure and simple, and please do not waste bandwidth
>disputing it. Be a man for once and concede that you wrote what
>you wrote and that you meant what you wrote.
I've never denied it. I might disagree with you about your absolute
definition of a liar.
>
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 3. If you had read Robert H. Hall "The Kensington Rune Stone:
>> >> Authentic and Important" you would realise that Wahlgren's
>> >> academic credibility in this area is destroyed for all practical
>> >> purposes. There can be few academics who have warranted having a
>> >> person of the standing of Robert H. Hall devoting an entire
>> >> chapter in a book to showing not just that they were wrong but
>> >> that they utterly dishonest.
>> >
>> >This is an incredible statement. You obviously do not know the
>> >difference between "utterly dishonest", "honest error",
>> >disagreements between academics, and "perhaps the source that
>> >Eric Stevens favors might just be in the wrong", meaning that as
>> >between Hall and Wallace, you credit Hall for no particular
>> >reason. Meanwhile, Wallace is an accredited Ph.D in the field,
>> >while Holand's qualifications in the field seem to be that he was
>> >of Nordic descent, and he loved a dollar.
>>
>> You clearly have not read Hall. Once you start trying to resolve
>> arguments by throwing qualifications into the balance, you will have
>> to take into account that Hall's qualifications include not only an
>> accredited PhD, but a tenured full professor and a Professor Emeritus
>> (do you need me to explain that last to you?). As to your comments
>> about Holand, what evidence do you have to justify making such attacks
>> on a dead man?
>>
>Read my latest reply to Inger.
It makes no directly obvious sense in the context of this discussion.
Have you read Hall?
Eric Stevens
wrote:
--- snip ---
>> but I can tell you this:
>> all swords, including the broken sword, that are shown on photos in the
>> photocopy from Holand's book resemble to 100% swords from before 1520 which you
>> today can see in a room at Linköping's Länsmuseum in Linköping Östergötland.
>> Thus I would like you to specify two details:
>> which sword are you talking about, where was it supposed to have been found,
>> can you prove that it's faked and that Holand knew that?
>
>Were I a Lithics expert I would be able to identify any edged stone
>tool, its date and its area of origin.
>Now how is it so difficult for some-one to identify a sword??
I have been trying to recover the earlier discussion (1999?) of this
from various sources. My memory is that the sword turned out to be a
replica sword made in 1805 for Masonic ceremonial purposes. That it
was a replica of a much earlier style of sword is why it was
incorrectly identified by a superficial examination. That Holand only
subjected it to a superficial examination was due to the fact that it
was held by the Smithsonian who would not let him examine it more
thoroughly. It was only when the Smithsonian itself got around to
examining the sword that the manufacturers impression was cleaned
sufficiently for it to be recognised.
I could be wrong as all of this is from memory on the basis of the
usual very confused argument which surrounds these things.
Hammerstad
http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/webcourse/lost/vikingbrf.html
for a summary which includes all names referred to in the thread, and background
on the other items discussed.
For one who wants to see the _science_ takes precedence in this group, this
thread seems completely out of place. There have unfortunately been many of the
same ilk in the few months that I have followed the group, is there any way to
get them stopped? There is a group called alt.archaeology, for those who enjoy
such subjects as the KSR, why not post there?
Steve Marcus
Big surprise. You are wrong. Not that one's memory may not fail
one (mine does all the time), but I did just a day or so ago
supply a citation to a reference that you own which would have
supplied information re the Ulen Sword. It is described as
bearing "no resemblance to Viking or medieval European swords,
which are much larger and often have two-handed hilts. The
prototype for this swords was designed by Louis David for the
Ecole de Mars in Paris in 1794, and its maker's mark indicates
manufacture in Philadelphia in the early 1800s". -- Vikings, The
North Atlantic Saga, Smithsonian Institution Press, 2000, page
382. The Ecole de Mars has nothing to do with "Masonic"
ceremonies. Try a google search on "Ecole de Mars".
>
> Eric Stevens
>
> My new email address:- eric.s...@sum.co.nz
Steve
Steve Marcus
>
> Steve,
> I have understand your answer now, but I still can't find any referenses,
> Ulen sword looks exactly like the type of sword which existed before
> Columbus time among some of the King of Sweden's Noblemans men. As you know
> King Magnus Eriksson had his men in Bergen, in Iceland and Greenland. Among
> them also at least two known nobleman. So if your don't come up with any
> ref, quotation etc which proves that
> a) the sword actually was made much later
> and that
> b) Holand knew that it was a faked sword
Inger, you obviously haven't understood my post. If you had, you
would understand that "what the Ulen sword looks like" is
irrelevant. One doesn't do science by resting on what an
artifact "looks like".
However, here is the reference that you asked for: Vikings, The
North Atlantic Saga, Smithsonian Institution Press, 2000, page
382. The Ulen Sword is described as bearing "no resemblance to
Viking or medieval European swords, which are much larger and
often have two-handed hilts. The prototype for this swords was
designed by Louis David for the Ecole de Mars in Paris in 1794,
and its maker's mark indicates manufacture in Philadelphia in the
early 1800s". Try a google search on "Ecole de Mars" to learn
more about the Ecole de Mars.
>
> I can't see that you have proven anything. You see the simple fact that the
> sword might not look like Norwegian Pre-Columbian swords isn't enough. The
> Norse rarely made swords before Viking Age and their sword during the Viking
> Age wasn't made from iron which had been worked with the same way as the
> double-egged and double sided swords that craftsmen inside the triangle in
> Östergötland I refer to started to make from 350 AD(OBSERVE I wrote 350 AD)
> much much earlier than other doublesided and double -egged sword were made
> anywhere else in the world and Steve by 14th Century some of the swords made
> for the Folkunga Dynasty's men looked alike the Ulen sword. I must say that
> if you can prove that the sword actually is faked I wonder how on earth
> someone outside Östergötland had the knowledge to do so even in our days
> because I never seen anyone like it among the copied swords from the
> medieval Age.
>
Again, the point of my post was the Holand's treatment of the
Ulen sword was seriously deficient; he basically declared it to
be a pre-Columbian Norse artifact after making some inquiries
that resulted in "we don't know what that sword is". There is
more to doing science than that. And Holand's behavior with
respect to the Ulen sword is sufficient to call into question his
desire to do "honest" science.
> Please send ref and/or quotation, it needn't be to URL on net.
>
Done. See above.
Steve Marcus
Really. You couldn't figure out that the "that" following "But"
was a typo?? Oh well. Once again. Not only did you accept
Holand's positions, in making your comments you certainly did not
take the view that based upon Holand's treatment of the Ulen
sword and "crusader's mentality" with respect to pre-Columbian
Nordic visitations to North America, it would be wise to take
Holand with a large grain of salt. But that is precisely what
you suggest be done with Wallace's viewpoints. What's good for
the goose, Eric...
Eric, every time that you set a new record for flat out
dishonesty, I think well, he's reached his limit. And I'm always
wrong.
Eric, you posted, in one post on 1/6/2002 (not in two so as to
merit separate comments by you on my post), two paragraphs re
Wallace. Your concluding sentence in your second paragraph was
"As Doug knows, I do this with all people who have demonstrated a
disregard for the truth". Do you seriously claim that this is
not saying Wallace is a liar?? What else would one call a person
who disregards the truth, and posts something other than the
truth?
> >
> >Now Eric, I don't propose to get involved in one of your infamous
> >attempts to twist the English language out all clear and direct
> >understanding in an attempt to defend the above posts. I'll be
> >direct: any Ph.D is charged with knowing what the standards of
> >scholarship are. A Ph.D who knowingly cites dubious sources is,
> >in effect lying.
>
> Aah - you are extending my claim. You may well be right. The
> obligation to deal honestly with the facts extends beyond Ph.Ds (and
> lawyers) to ordinary people in these news groups. If you are correct
> in your argumen, by relying on Wahlgren, Wallace has shown herself to
> be a liar. If you apply your logic consistently you will no longer
> rely on Wallace.
Actually, perhaps Wallace had/has good and sufficient reasons for
regarding Hall to be wrong re Wahlgren. Or perhaps Wallace
wasn't aware of Hall's publication re Wahlgren. But none of
these things stopped you from posting words that clearly equate
to saying that Wallace is a liar, contrary to your claim that you
did not so post.
And on the other hand, what excuse do you propose for Holand's
treatment of the Ulen sword? Or for alleging that holes found on
high ground totally removed from water are "Norse mooring holes"?
>
> >And if you disagree, then you are simply stuck
> >with the last quoted sentence above in which you say this re
> >Wallace: "As Doug knows, I do this with all people who have
> >demonstrated a disregard for the truth." That is calling her a
> >liar, pure and simple, and please do not waste bandwidth
> >disputing it. Be a man for once and concede that you wrote what
> >you wrote and that you meant what you wrote.
>
> I've never denied it. I might disagree with you about your absolute
> definition of a liar.
Never denied what? That you called Wallace a liar? You
certainly did deny it. And it took about five minutes to dredge
your own words out of google to show that you were, ahem....
mistaken.
Not recently. But whereas you are prepared to accept what he
writes without question (since he supports a position that you
favor), I do not recall that I was impressed that what he had to
say was necessarily correct.
>
> Eric Stevens
>
> My new email address:- eric.s...@sum.co.nz
Steve
tkavanagh
messages.
tk
Inger E. Johansson
news:3C38A15A...@ihug.co.nz...
> "Inger E. Johansson" wrote:
> >
> > "Steve Marcus" <barbm...@erols.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C389296...@erols.com...
> >
> > > Inger:
> > >
> > > If I were to show you an artifact and claim that it was a
> > > pre-Columbian Norse sword, without checking whether it bore any
> > > resemblance to a pre-Columbian Norse sword in terms of size,
> > > weight and design by seeking to compare it to known examples of a
> > > pre-Columbian Norse sword, what would you consider me to be
> > > doing, deliberately lying, or simply being sloppy?
> >
> > I don't know which sword you are talking about,
>
> You have been pushing this 'sword=KRS' for quite a while now.
> Even I am aware of the sword in question as being 'wrong'
Are you aware that it's not "the sword" but "the swords" in other word that
it's a total of 4 swords found and that at least one of them have ended up with
a metallurgic report that supports the Pre-Columbian Age and the usuage of
"Swedish" methods used to produce the Iron????
I think you better prepare yourself for the fact that even if one sword might
be, observe I wrote might be because I haven't seen any objective proofs, not
genuine there are others that obviously are.
Inger E
the quoted text show one thing and one thing only:
the Smithsonian Institution are at least incorrect in one thing - the sword
actually do resemble 14th-15th Century Scandinavian -read Swedish swords!
If that quotation and the information Smithsonian Institution gives in
Viking to their "analyse-result" is all that you have found I suggest that
the question isn't solved. Btw I do know that there was a metallurgic
analyse made once of the iron involved - if that analyse didn't support
Smithsonian Institution's assumption, because it's assumption due to the
fact that they started their analyse from an incorrect assumption not proven
correct and later proven incorrect, why didn't Smithsonian refer to that
analyse? I heard from a friend that we might have the original analyse
available, they (persons I know) are looking in archieves for it a register
note that it exist is found.
Inger E
"Steve Marcus" <barbm...@erols.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C3913B9...@erols.com...
George Black
snip
> > > I don't know which sword you are talking about,
> >
> > You have been pushing this 'sword=KRS' for quite a while now.
> > Even I am aware of the sword in question as being 'wrong'
>
> Are you aware that it's not "the sword" but "the swords" in other word that
> it's a total of 4 swords found and that at least one of them have ended up with
> a metallurgic report that supports the Pre-Columbian Age and the usuage of
> "Swedish" methods used to produce the Iron????
>
> I think you better prepare yourself for the fact that even if one sword might
> be, observe I wrote might be because I haven't seen any objective proofs, not
> genuine there are others that obviously are.
Again. This little matter of provenance!
I have Roman coins minted in England at York in my collection.
All of them can be assayed and found to be as they are claimed
Do you understand that the coins are genuine they are just out of
context.
Your swords are the same.
One of these vaunted proofs/swords has been shown to have a different
pedigree from that claimed.
25% of your -evidence- has just failed.
Inger E
if you don't think this thread to be good, that's your opinion. Need I tell
you that there are others who without prejudges don't share your opinion no
matter what they believe re. KRS or not. For example spoke Prof. Dick
Harrison, Lund Sweden, one of Scandinavia's and thus the worlds best
specialist on Medieval Scandinavian History summer 2001 in Nyköping about an
other interpretation of the Vinland facts than in the L'anse Medow area, and
his interpretation of Vinland places it in an other Geographical
surroundings.
Given the fact that new finds have been made in several places in Canada,
not only Baffin Island or Labrador and that there among the found axes in
Minnesota, Michigan and along Red River's waterways are several that have
been investigated in the past of Scholars who actually were specialists in
medieval Scandinavian archeology and iron-artifacts who certified that many
of the axes were genuine contrary to those non-specialists who spoke against
them,
and
that the same axes have been identified later, during the last years as of
Medieval Scandinavian style, other medieval Scandinavian items found between
1860's-1990's most of them in a very rusty shape and two feets below
ground-level not to be forgotten.
Hammerstad I think you better prepare for the fact that all Norse and
Swedish presens in Canada's and US' Pre-Columbian layer might have something
to do with Vinland being in the middle of NA, in other word exactly the same
place as you'll end up if you follow the Icelandic priest and geographist
Nicholas of Thingeyre's instruction from 1127 on how to sail to Vinland. If
you don't I for one wouldn't like to be in your shoes the next years having
to reconsider all assumptions you have had in this question.
The big deal isn't KRS, that's only a short time in history, the real thing
will in the end give you and everyone else information of the Scandinavian
settlements in Labrador, in Alberta(shore station) and from Hudson Bay down
to Mississippi River.
Good Night in this discussion.
Inger E
"Hammerstad" <eg...@start.no> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C38DC05...@start.no...
Eric Stevens
<barbm...@erols.com> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
--- snip ---
>Really. You couldn't figure out that the "that" following "But"
>was a typo?? Oh well. Once again. Not only did you accept
>Holand's positions, in making your comments you certainly did not
>take the view that based upon Holand's treatment of the Ulen
>sword and "crusader's mentality" with respect to pre-Columbian
>Nordic visitations to North America, it would be wise to take
>Holand with a large grain of salt. But that is precisely what
>you suggest be done with Wallace's viewpoints. What's good for
>the goose, Eric...
I have never taken any particular position on the basis of Holand.
There is no requirement me to issue a repudiation of someone whose
works I have never read.
You are a alwyer and are supposed to have a skill with words.
Wahlgren appears to have considerably lied.
Wallace has ignored that fact and cited Wahlgren's opinion. That does
not make Wallace a liar. It makes her a person who does not care about
the truth of the sources she relies upon. The lie was Wahlgren's.
>What else would one call a person
>who disregards the truth, and posts something other than the
>truth?
>
>> >
>> >Now Eric, I don't propose to get involved in one of your infamous
>> >attempts to twist the English language out all clear and direct
>> >understanding in an attempt to defend the above posts. I'll be
>> >direct: any Ph.D is charged with knowing what the standards of
>> >scholarship are. A Ph.D who knowingly cites dubious sources is,
>> >in effect lying.
>>
>> Aah - you are extending my claim. You may well be right. The
>> obligation to deal honestly with the facts extends beyond Ph.Ds (and
>> lawyers) to ordinary people in these news groups. If you are correct
>> in your argumen, by relying on Wahlgren, Wallace has shown herself to
>> be a liar. If you apply your logic consistently you will no longer
>> rely on Wallace.
>
>Actually, perhaps Wallace had/has good and sufficient reasons for
>regarding Hall to be wrong re Wahlgren. Or perhaps Wallace
>wasn't aware of Hall's publication re Wahlgren.
She is supposed to be the expert.
>But none of
>these things stopped you from posting words that clearly equate
>to saying that Wallace is a liar, contrary to your claim that you
>did not so post.
If I quite clearly said Wallace was a liar, why are going to such
trouble to actually make me say that?
>
>And on the other hand, what excuse do you propose for Holand's
>treatment of the Ulen sword?
Shouold I propose an excuse?
>Or for alleging that holes found on
>high ground totally removed from water are "Norse mooring holes"?
I don't know that he actually did that. How then can I offer an
excuse?
>>
>> >And if you disagree, then you are simply stuck
>> >with the last quoted sentence above in which you say this re
>> >Wallace: "As Doug knows, I do this with all people who have
>> >demonstrated a disregard for the truth." That is calling her a
>> >liar, pure and simple, and please do not waste bandwidth
>> >disputing it. Be a man for once and concede that you wrote what
>> >you wrote and that you meant what you wrote.
>>
>> I've never denied it. I might disagree with you about your absolute
>> definition of a liar.
>
>Never denied what?
That I wrote what I wrote.
Have you actually read 'Robert H. Hall "The Kensington Rune Stone:
Authentic and Important"' Your answer that you haven't read it
recently does not eliminate the possibility that you haven't read it
all.
>But whereas you are prepared to accept what he
>writes without question (since he supports a position that you
>favor), I do not recall that I was impressed that what he had to
>say was necessarily correct.
You haven't read it all, have you?
Eric Stevens
There are no grounds for regarding the KRS as not belonging to
sci.archaeology. Recent work indicates quite the contrary.
Michael Zalar
> than "sloppy" with respect to the Ulen sword. He was
> deliberately ignoring basic standards of science and scholarship
> in claiming that the sword was pre-Columbian. He did not compare
> the sword with known examples of the types of sword that he
> claimed it to be, or have it so compared. He did not consider
> meaning of the context in which it was discovered (beyond that it
> was found in Minnesota, near enough in his view of things to the
> KRS for the sword to "be" a Norse artifact), the condition of the
> metal of the sword, and the fact that the sword (as would any
> artifact) needed to be closely examined and properly cleaned by
> experts in order to make identification of it as easy and as
> accurate as possible.
>
Steve,
Have you actually read the section on the Ulen sword from Holand's
book? He sent photos of the sword to the Smithsonian to see if they
could identify the sword as being of any type known to be made in
America. They could not.
He cites numerous illustrations of such a sword from 14th century
Scandinavia.
Even so, and this is important, he never claims in the absolute that
the Ulen Sword, is of 14th century Scandinavian origin. He puts
forward arguments regarding the lack of evidence of any American
origin of the sword as well as arguments for the 14th century origin,
as well as arguments regarding whether or not the sword could have
been brought in by settlers previous to its finding. But at no point
does he claim, specifically and absolutely, that the sword is of
Pre-Columbian origin.
The closes the comes is "The Ulen sword is of a type which antedates
these changes and is charactaristic of the fourteenth century or
earlier".
Meanwhile the claim is made that there is a makers mark on the sword.
I have seen the sword (admittedly briefly) but have not seen this
mark. Where is it? Where are the photos? Was it examined personally
by someone with the expertise to determine there was a makers mark on
the sword? Or is it just a claim, an assertion made without giving
proper evidence. An assertion made, unlike Holand, as an absolute.
I believe that there was some outside examination of the sword early
after it was found, before it was returned to the owner - I think that
the results were inconclusive, but I do not have any the particular
notes on that handy.
It is of course your assumption that Holand did not want or try to get
the sword examined as you suggest. Indeed, it was in the hands of the
State Teachers College in Moorhead - I find it strange that they did
not attempt to examine the sword while it was in their possession.
However it was not Holand's sword by any means. I do not know how
much (or not) Holand attempted to get the sword examined by experts,
but neither do you. You rely on assumption at this point in your
argument, not on fact.
Michael
Michael Zalar
> However, here is the reference that you asked for: Vikings, The
> North Atlantic Saga, Smithsonian Institution Press, 2000, page
> 382. The Ulen Sword is described as bearing "no resemblance to
> Viking or medieval European swords, which are much larger and
> often have two-handed hilts. The prototype for this swords was
> designed by Louis David for the Ecole de Mars in Paris in 1794,
> and its maker's mark indicates manufacture in Philadelphia in the
> early 1800s". Try a google search on "Ecole de Mars" to learn
> more about the Ecole de Mars.
>
and who was the author of that chapter?
Inger E
I suggest that you look for Swedish medieval short dolks and sword. For
example you can look for the one from 1480(ok I know that it's 100 later
than 1362 but I can provide you with text from official sources saying that
the type was in use since around 1300 in the Swedish King's court) which
shapes are exactly identical to the Ulen sword.(if you can't find it I can
send you a copy over mail) Mind you what you haven't made any comments in
re. of the fact that the so called replica(I am not at all convinced that it
is a replica but more about that later) must have been copied from
something, don't you agree. Thus the the question still stands who could
copy a genuine 14th-15th Century Swedish sword which few outside the
Noblemen could have had access to.
As for the context, George be patient there are a context even if you can't
see it for the moment. I have documentation of a Swedish-Norse engagement
south of Hudson Bay up to 1550 AD, Good documentation from 1127 AD and also
some contemporary documentation from 1020-1127. Where did they go? Well they
moved eastward in 1550's and ended up in the upperstate NY. But that's an
other story which is true history but still needs to wait until you all have
comprehended that you have been forgetting to look for ALL sources from you
time in question while many of you have believed the Icelandic Sagas to be
the "best" source for information. That's not so, not at all.
Inger E
"George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C391436...@ihug.co.nz...
Inger E
of course you are correct, but since I couldn't be sure due to Doug's
writing to the group if he had received my mail re. the information and his
mail to the group indicated that he looked for such.
Inger E
"tkavanagh" <tkav...@indiana.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C390006...@indiana.edu...
Steve Marcus
>
> Steve,
> the quoted text show one thing and one thing only:
> the Smithsonian Institution are at least incorrect in one thing - the sword
> actually do resemble 14th-15th Century Scandinavian -read Swedish swords!
>
> If that quotation and the information Smithsonian Institution gives in
> Viking to their "analyse-result" is all that you have found I suggest that
> the question isn't solved. Btw I do know that there was a metallurgic
> analyse made once of the iron involved - if that analyse didn't support
> Smithsonian Institution's assumption, because it's assumption due to the
> fact that they started their analyse from an incorrect assumption not proven
> correct and later proven incorrect, why didn't Smithsonian refer to that
> analyse? I heard from a friend that we might have the original analyse
> available, they (persons I know) are looking in archieves for it a register
> note that it exist is found.
Because, Inger, the sword in question has the maker's mark on it
that shows that it was made in Philadelphia in 1805. What part
of that don't you understand???
If you cannot accept that a sword having a mark showing that it
was manufactured in Philadelphia in 1805 is NOT an artifact of
pre-Columbian visit to North America, it does not appear
productive for me to continue to reply to your comments. If you
cannot accept that a "source" who pronounces such an artifact as
being an "authentic" pre-Columbian artifact based upon its
appearance, it having been discovered in Minnesota and the
inability of a source that he consulted to positively identify
the artifact, then it likewise does not appear productive for me
to continue to reply to your comments.
Steve Marcus
Dr. William W. Fitzhugh, Director of the Arctic Studies Center
and Curator in the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution and Dr. Brigitta L.
Wallace, Parks Canada. Both are "obviously" members of the
conspiracy to preclude giving the pre-Columbian Norse credit for
their visits to North America :) This is particularly "true" of
Wallace who has been in charge of doing excavations at L'Anse aux
Meadows and who, last I checked, argues that the actual location
of Vinland is not LAM, but someplace to the south.
Steve Marcus
>
> Steve Marcus <barbm...@erols.com> wrote in message
> > So Inger, by simple logic, I find that Mr. Holand was being more
> > than "sloppy" with respect to the Ulen sword. He was
> > deliberately ignoring basic standards of science and scholarship
> > in claiming that the sword was pre-Columbian. He did not compare
> > the sword with known examples of the types of sword that he
> > claimed it to be, or have it so compared. He did not consider
> > meaning of the context in which it was discovered (beyond that it
> > was found in Minnesota, near enough in his view of things to the
> > KRS for the sword to "be" a Norse artifact), the condition of the
> > metal of the sword, and the fact that the sword (as would any
> > artifact) needed to be closely examined and properly cleaned by
> > experts in order to make identification of it as easy and as
> > accurate as possible.
> >
> <much clipped on both sides for brevity>
>
> Steve,
>
> Have you actually read the section on the Ulen sword from Holand's
> book? He sent photos of the sword to the Smithsonian to see if they
> could identify the sword as being of any type known to be made in
> America. They could not.
Which does not, of course give the man license to claim anything
about the sword's history or provenance.
> He cites numerous illustrations of such a sword from 14th century
> Scandinavia.
> Even so, and this is important, he never claims in the absolute that
> the Ulen Sword, is of 14th century Scandinavian origin. He puts
> forward arguments regarding the lack of evidence of any American
> origin of the sword as well as arguments for the 14th century origin,
> as well as arguments regarding whether or not the sword could have
> been brought in by settlers previous to its finding.
Interesting argument, considering that the sword
self-authenticates as having been "made in the USA, in 1805".
But at no point
> does he claim, specifically and absolutely, that the sword is of
> Pre-Columbian origin.
> The closes the comes is "The Ulen sword is of a type which antedates
> these changes and is charactaristic of the fourteenth century or
> earlier".
>
And the purpose of including the sword in his book, and pointing
out that the sword is of a type which is characteristic of 14th
century or earlier swords, was...??
> Meanwhile the claim is made that there is a makers mark on the sword.
> I have seen the sword (admittedly briefly) but have not seen this
> mark. Where is it? Where are the photos? Was it examined personally
> by someone with the expertise to determine there was a makers mark on
> the sword? Or is it just a claim, an assertion made without giving
> proper evidence. An assertion made, unlike Holand, as an absolute.
Oh, I'm certain it's "just a claim". Two Ph.D's have conspired
with the Smithsonian Institution to create a fraud on history.
They have done so in a popular publication, so that folks like us
would have an easy time catching them at it.
Michael, do a google search on "William F. Fitzhugh". You will
obtain an e-mail address for him. Then write him and ask whether
he is merely making an "assertion" in this article.
>
> I believe that there was some outside examination of the sword early
> after it was found, before it was returned to the owner - I think that
> the results were inconclusive, but I do not have any the particular
> notes on that handy.
> It is of course your assumption that Holand did not want or try to get
> the sword examined as you suggest. Indeed, it was in the hands of the
> State Teachers College in Moorhead - I find it strange that they did
> not attempt to examine the sword while it was in their possession.
> However it was not Holand's sword by any means. I do not know how
> much (or not) Holand attempted to get the sword examined by experts,
> but neither do you. You rely on assumption at this point in your
> argument, not on fact.
My point is that in the absence of having the sword examined by
experts who in turn would give a positive opinion (something
other than "we don't know"), no one interested in doing
creditable science would make any claim or draw any inference,
whether or not you choose to characterize the "claim" as being
"absolute". This is particularly so for an artifact discovered
with absolutely no provenance. Why not claim that the sword was
"17th century French"? Surely, it is "like" such swords, having
a blade and a pommel and a hilt, with the French having been in
Canada (near Minnesota) and all.
>
> Michael
Steve Marcus
>
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 19:32:41 -0800, Steve Marcus
> <barbm...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> --- snip ---
>
<snip>
> >> >
> >> >Posted by you on 1/6/2002: "I was specifically referring to
> >> >Wallaces reliance on Wahlgren as an been grossly dishonest in his
> >> >dealings with the KRS. It is almost incredible to suggest that
> >> >Wallace would not have been aware of what Hall had published.
> >>
> >> See above.
> >> >
> >> >And yes, I am trying to get people to, not necessarily ignore
> >> >Wallace, but to treat her with extreme caution. As Doug knows, I
> >> >do this with all people who have demonstrated a disregard for the
> >> >truth."
> >>
> >> See above.
> >
> >Eric, every time that you set a new record for flat out
> >dishonesty, I think well, he's reached his limit. And I'm always
> >wrong.
> >
> >Eric, you posted, in one post on 1/6/2002 (not in two so as to
> >merit separate comments by you on my post), two paragraphs re
> >Wallace. Your concluding sentence in your second paragraph was
> >"As Doug knows, I do this with all people who have demonstrated a
> >disregard for the truth". Do you seriously claim that this is
> >not saying Wallace is a liar??
>
> You are a alwyer and are supposed to have a skill with words.
And you are from New Zealand and purport to be be a native
English speaker.
>
> Wahlgren appears to have considerably lied.
>
> Wallace has ignored that fact and cited Wahlgren's opinion. That does
> not make Wallace a liar. It makes her a person who does not care about
> the truth of the sources she relies upon. The lie was Wahlgren's.
>
> >What else would one call a person
> >who disregards the truth, and posts something other than the
> >truth?
Hmmmm... No answer to that one, Eric. You wrote, regarding
Wallace, "As Doug knows, I do this with all people who have
demonstrated a disregard for the truth". Is that, or is that
not, calling Wallace a liar? What other description than "liar"
applies to a person who disregards the truth??
> >
> >> >
> >> >Now Eric, I don't propose to get involved in one of your infamous
> >> >attempts to twist the English language out all clear and direct
> >> >understanding in an attempt to defend the above posts. I'll be
> >> >direct: any Ph.D is charged with knowing what the standards of
> >> >scholarship are. A Ph.D who knowingly cites dubious sources is,
> >> >in effect lying.
> >>
> >> Aah - you are extending my claim. You may well be right. The
> >> obligation to deal honestly with the facts extends beyond Ph.Ds (and
> >> lawyers) to ordinary people in these news groups. If you are correct
> >> in your argumen, by relying on Wahlgren, Wallace has shown herself to
> >> be a liar. If you apply your logic consistently you will no longer
> >> rely on Wallace.
> >
> >Actually, perhaps Wallace had/has good and sufficient reasons for
> >regarding Hall to be wrong re Wahlgren. Or perhaps Wallace
> >wasn't aware of Hall's publication re Wahlgren.
>
> She is supposed to be the expert.
A she _is_ an expert, Eric. But experts can, and do, make
mistakes. Let's say that she did. That may make her careless,
or sloppy. Or, perhaps she was simply unaware of Hall's work,
which hardly even qualifies as a mistake. Or, she may have good
reasons for disregarding Hall's work as itself being flawed.
None of that can be described as having a disregard for the
truth.
Holand, on the other hand, is told of a find in Minnesota,
otherwise without provenance, of a sword. He asks for help
identifying it, and is told by some folks (let's call them
"experts"), that they can't identify it. So Holand immediately
champions the sword as a pre-Columbian Norse artifact which
"looks like" pre-Columbian Nordic swords. He has no real basis
for doing so; essentially it is a wild guess on his part.
Now I care nothing for whether you will admit to having cited
Holand, or discussed his opinions approvingly. My point
remains. You criticized Wallace as being a liar (regardless of
your attempts to weasel out of the clear meaning of your own
words), but do not hold Holand to the same standard. My gosh,
Eric, Holand quite arguably lied even with respect to having
"bought" the KRS from Ohman. But that's okay, Holand advocates a
position with which you agree, while Wallace does not. Holand
good, Wallace bad. QED.
>
> >But none of
> >these things stopped you from posting words that clearly equate
> >to saying that Wallace is a liar, contrary to your claim that you
> >did not so post.
>
> If I quite clearly said Wallace was a liar, why are going to such
> trouble to actually make me say that?
No trouble at all showing that you said it, as demonstrated
above. The trouble is getting you to be a man and admit to it.
<snip Eric's attempt to change the subject. By-the-by, Eric, I
have indeed read Hall's book, although I do not own it. I have
no present plans to re-read it.>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
> My new email address:- eric.s...@sum.co.nz
Steve
Inger E
Steve,
which quotation do you lean to, written by who etc when you say that you
know "that the sword self-authenticates as having been "made in the USA, in
1805".
Secondly can you prove that any Scandinavian 1805 lived in the area where
the Ulen Sword was found.
Thirdly do you know that Wahlgren can't be said to have been specialist in
any other thing than lingustic history? His word can't thus be used as a
specialist in ref. to anything regarding Scandinavian artifacts except KRS
where he missed almost all of the Medival Swedish and Norwegian
diplomas...... And that in a subject where he was supposed to have been a
specialist....
Inger E
Inger E
have you comprehended and understood that Michael Z didn't see any such
markers???? Can you quote the person or persons who say that there are such
markers?
Inger E
"Steve Marcus" <barbm...@erols.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C39A4F2...@erols.com...
Wallace J.McLean
> The big deal isn't KRS, that's only a short time in history, the real thing
> will in the end give you and everyone else information of the Scandinavian
> settlements in Labrador, in Alberta(shore station) and from Hudson Bay down
That Alberta shore station must have been a pretty remarkable find for a
landlocked province.
Inger E
maybe words doesn't mean the same for you as the do for many other, that's
ok. First of all what we are talking about is
a) a higher waterlevel in a river that in the Medieval Age was possible to
sail larger ships than now in.
(Why the waterlevels were higher? all rivers meander and during that process
the sand/stuff from the bottom follows the river down-streams and at the
same time the river "eats" it self down in the terrain;
b)the second reason is that Bronze - Iron Age Lakes that either have
vanished due to landtip=different equalent for landrise in various parts of
the Lake or due to drainage in the late 19th -early 20th Century)
Thus what we are talking about isn't a costal shore place but a shore place
possible to enter "direkt" from Sea in the Medieval Age via those days
watersystem rivers, lakes and alike.
Inger E
"Wallace J.McLean" <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> skrev i meddelandet
news:a1chfo$cvk$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
George Black
>
> George,
> I suggest that you look for Swedish medieval short dolks and sword. For
> example you can look for the one from 1480(ok I know that it's 100 later
> than 1362 but I can provide you with text from official sources saying that
> the type was in use since around 1300 in the Swedish King's court) which
> shapes are exactly identical to the Ulen sword.(if you can't find it I can
> send you a copy over mail) Mind you what you haven't made any comments in
> re. of the fact that the so called replica(I am not at all convinced that it
> is a replica but more about that later) must have been copied from
> something, don't you agree. Thus the the question still stands who could
> copy a genuine 14th-15th Century Swedish sword which few outside the
> Noblemen could have had access to.
We once again come back to the 'discovery' of a medieval Scandinavian
artifact on its own in the (middle) of a paddock turned up by a fortuous
type of ploughing by some-one of Scandinavian descent.
The claim as to the coat of arms falls over and the point broken off the
sword renders it more useful for cutting undergrowth.
As to short dolts ........
> As for the context, George be patient there are a context even if you can't
> see it for the moment. I have documentation of a Swedish-Norse engagement
> south of Hudson Bay up to 1550 AD, Good documentation from 1127 AD and also
> some contemporary documentation from 1020-1127. Where did they go? Well they
> moved eastward in 1550's and ended up in the upperstate NY. But that's an
> other story which is true history but still needs to wait until you all have
> comprehended that you have been forgetting to look for ALL sources from you
> time in question while many of you have believed the Icelandic Sagas to be
> the "best" source for information. That's not so, not at all.
The Icelandic sagas pointed to what appears to have been the ONLY North
American incursion.
Had there been others there would have been the same documentary
evidence.
George Black
him :-))
Eric Stevens
For a picture of the "Ecole de Mars" type of sword see
http://arms2armor.com/Swords/misc5.htm
An illustration of the Ulen sword can be found at
http://www.geocities.com/netnoaide/ulen.html The identification of the
type and dating of the details on this sword on this page appears to
be incorrect.
A range of Viking swords can be seen at
http://images.google.com/images?q=viking+sword&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
A range of medieval swords can be seen at
http://images.google.com/images?num=20&q=medieval+sword&btnG=Google+Search
A comparison between a Viking and a 15th century sword can be seen at
http://www.vikingsword.com/mainfm.html After studying this and reading
the text below it will be seen that Steve Marcus does not know what he
is taling about when it comes to identifying swords.
We have been through all of this before. I have searched my archives
and discovered:
http://www.hum.gu.se/arkiv/ONN/2000/I/msg00412.html
Begin quote:
-------------------
Unfortunately, I believe the Ulen Sword must be a mistake, or a
purposeful fraud. No one wants to find evidence of Northmen in North
America's interior more than me, but it looks very much like a lodge
sword, or a small sword of the late 1700's to early 1800's. I have
studied medieval swords for nearly two decades (& have a large
collection of replica medieval swords) and can assure you that this
weapon could not have been part of the Knutson expedition.
First of all, the blade is too narrow and light in its design. Its
diamond shaped cross section and apparently solid brass hilt was not
used until colonial times. It continues to be used by fraternal
societies, such as the Knights of Columbus, even today.
If it was plowed up from deep soil along the Red River, it could have
been carried there by any number of post-Columbian explorers. Such
swords were used as officer swords by European powers and the U.S.
Army.
These swords were purchased privately by individual officers and often
had customized emblems. As a trained archaeologist, I should point out
that the Red River is very prone to flooding and a sword found even a
foot below the unbroken soil could have been placed there as little as
50 years earlier.
The breastplate depicted on the guard is not of medieval design. The
objects depicted just below its shoulders are metal attachment discs
for leather straps. This makes it a breastplate worn without a
backplate. It shows a Cuirassier's breastplate from the turn of the
18th century. The sword can not be earlier than this type of
breastplate.
------------------------
End quote:
I also corresponded with Del Tin - see
http://www.sarpedon.com/swords/interpreting.htm - a recognised expert
on swords - and from memory he identified the sword as 15th to 16th
century French in general pattern. Unfortunately the correspondence
has vanished from my computer and I cannot presently find the hard
copy.
While it may have been raised even earlier, according to my archives,
I found that the subject of the Ulen sword was first introduced to
this news group by Steve Marcus in the thread " Re: SV: Smithsonian
and the Kensington Stone (long)" on 25 June 2000 as being a member of
a list of " notoriously faked artifacts". A discussion of the sword
and its relationship to Holand continued on 25 June 2000 in the
thread "KRS: Kudos and Runes" when as part of a general attack on
Holand, Steve Marcus wrote:
" .... Holand whose intellectual honesty is open to question
(see my post re his treatment of an 18th century sword bearing
the maker's mark as having been made in Philadelphia as being
a Norse artifact)".
Michael Zalar wrote on 27 June 2000:
I believe that a makers mark would have been hidden beneath
the decorations extending in front of the crossguard. I have
not seen an illustration of the mark - I know the sword was
rusted and anything of the sort would have been difficult to
see, if not almost entirely destroyed. Also, I do not know who
made the charge that the sword bears a makers mark from
Philadelphia - if it is Birgitta Wallace, well Her
intellectually honesty is considerably lower, at least with
regards to the runestone, than Holands. I would like
to see the documentation on this, while I do not paticularly
believe the sword is Midieval Norse, I also am not familiar
with any studies done opposing the idea. Frequently, what peope
have described as runes on rocks turn out to be glacial
scratches - could it be this maker's mark is the same thing in
reverse - that some scratches in the blade were taken for a mark
by someone who wanted to find a reason for the blade to be false?
I really need more info on this. Holand did check to see if
this was a sword in use by the army, and sent a photograph
and letter to the Smithsonian regarding it, the result being that
it was unlike any US army sword that they were aware of. My own
brief examination of the photo, comparing it with the styles of
swords that can be found on the net also shows several points of
difference between them - the hilt is flat, while on all other
swords the hilt is curved to fit the hand, and like wise the
cross guard is flat and plain, while military swords have curves
and flourishes. It is certainly far cruder in these regards than
what I have seen of authentic US military swords. Perhaps a
cheap knock off of the general style, but not one that appears
to have been used by the military. There is nothing specific,
outside the alleged makers mark, that would differentiate this
from a midieval sword. For a picture of the sword see
http://www.geocities.com/netnoaide/ulen.html
By the 28th June the discussion had reached the point:
Steve Marcus:
And again, you have a reading problem. I didn't say "shorter"
than the typical Norse sword. I said about half the size.
That means more than length; I take it to mean that it's
smaller in all proportions than Viking or medieval European
swords which, according to my reference, generally had two-handed
hilts.
Eric Stevens
Viking and medieval European swords are generally two different
things. There are several varieties of two-handed swords ranging
from the ferocious battle-hacking Claymore to the monsters
wielded by knights by keeping them point down in front of them
while apparently holding them back to front at the grip. Neither
of these were general all-purpose swords and certainly were not
typical of the Vikings who would fight with a sword in one hand
and a shield in the other.
Later on 28 June 2000 Steve Marcus wrote:
".... according to my source, what as you have written, "[T]here
is nothing specific, outside the alleged makers mark, that would
differentiate this from a midieval sword." is inaccurate. The
sword is much smaller than medieval Norse swords. This doesn't
seem to have impressed Holand much.
As to the maker's mark being hidden by dirt, rust, etc., I don't
believe anyone interested in doing an honest assessment of the
sword can possibly be so incompetent as to overlook something
like that.
Again on 28 June 2000 Steve Marcus wrote:
Medieval swords generally had two hand hilts, and were larger in
total "heft" than merely being "longer" than the Ulen sword
which is broken near its point. And I will stand on the
position that a careful, competent and objective researcher
would not have commented on the sword's origins prior to having
done the most careful of studies. Writing a letter to the
Smithsonian and being told what the sword was not does not excuse
the failure to have the sword cleaned to the extent possible; if
the maker's mark was found only after such cleaning, it simply
points to a lack of care, competence of objectivity on Holand's
part.
On 29 June 2000 Michael Zalar wrote:
"Ah, then you have reviewed Holand's notes, read his work on the
subject and know how much, or little study was done on the sword.
I understand now - would you be so kind as to give me references
so that I can find the same information. I'm afraid all I have
are some brief comments in Holand's book, in which he notes that
there are only a few such specimens found in Europe, and notes
several specific illustrations which show such swords. He also
did take the troble of obtaining affidavits as to the finding of
the sword, but I suppose that is irrelivant.
> Writing a letter to the Smithsonian and being told
> what the sword was not does not excuse the failure to have
> the sword cleaned to the extent possible; if the maker's
> mark was found only after such cleaning, it simply points
> to a lack of care, competence of objectivity on Holand's part.
Oh my I never realized that he owned the sword, to be able to
clean it.
I'm sorry, I get a little upset at arguments based on innuendo
and not fact.
You assume that Holand made little effort to determine the
origin of the sword, but give no facts to support it. You
don't even know what he wrote about it, but you criticize him
anyway. Show me that Holand did something wrong, give me
specifics, dont just pass judgements on things you dont know.
All this from one paragraph in a controversial, error filled,
and biased book. It amazes me.
The evidence appears to be that Steve Marcus has long been using the
Ulen sword as weapon to attack Holand without knowing anything much
about either the sword or Holand's actual opinion and how he reached
Hammerstad
> Hammerstad,
> if you don't think this thread to be good, that's your opinion. Need I tell
> you that there are others who without prejudges don't share your opinion no
> matter what they believe re. KRS or not. For example spoke Prof. Dick
> Harrison, Lund Sweden, one of Scandinavia's and thus the worlds best
> specialist on Medieval Scandinavian History summer 2001 in Nyköping about an
> other interpretation of the Vinland facts than in the L'anse Medow area, and
> his interpretation of Vinland places it in an other Geographical
> surroundings.
Dick Harrison is a university lecturer at Lund, not a professor. His doctorate
from 1993 was on the Lombards. Since then he seems to have concentrated on book
writing - excellent ones it seems since he gets prizes for them. He does not
seem to have written anything specifically on Vikings in North America, so
whatever he said about L'Anse aux Meadows hardly has anything to bear upon the
KSR, related items. You are showing an amazingly unscholarly use of sources.
>
> Hammerstad I think you better prepare for the fact that all Norse and
> Swedish presens in Canada's and US' Pre-Columbian layer might have something
> to do with Vinland being in the middle of NA, in other word exactly the same
> place as you'll end up if you follow the Icelandic priest and geographist
> Nicholas of Thingeyre's instruction from 1127 on how to sail to Vinland. If
> you don't I for one wouldn't like to be in your shoes the next years having
> to reconsider all assumptions you have had in this question.
I could not care less if one finds evidence of Swedish (nor Norwegian) presense
in the middle of NA, but I certainly think that the odds for that are nil.
>
> The big deal isn't KRS, that's only a short time in history, the real thing
> will in the end give you and everyone else information of the Scandinavian
> settlements in Labrador, in Alberta(shore station) and from Hudson Bay down
> to Mississippi River.
Well good luck, and please report back when you have a peer reviewed paper to
back up your claims.
Hammerstad
Could you quote any which are peer reviewed?
Eric Stevens
<barbm...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >What else would one call a person
>> >who disregards the truth, and posts something other than the
>> >truth?
>
>Hmmmm... No answer to that one, Eric. You wrote, regarding
>Wallace, "As Doug knows, I do this with all people who have
>demonstrated a disregard for the truth". Is that, or is that
>not, calling Wallace a liar? What other description than "liar"
>applies to a person who disregards the truth??
A lawyer. :-)
Eric Stevens
<barbm...@erols.com> wrote:
>Michael Zalar wrote:
>>
>> Steve Marcus <barbm...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<3C3913B9...@erols.com>...
>>
>> > However, here is the reference that you asked for: Vikings, The
>> > North Atlantic Saga, Smithsonian Institution Press, 2000, page
>> > 382. The Ulen Sword is described as bearing "no resemblance to
>> > Viking or medieval European swords, which are much larger and
>> > often have two-handed hilts. The prototype for this swords was
>> > designed by Louis David for the Ecole de Mars in Paris in 1794,
>> > and its maker's mark indicates manufacture in Philadelphia in the
>> > early 1800s". Try a google search on "Ecole de Mars" to learn
>> > more about the Ecole de Mars.
>> >
>>
>> and who was the author of that chapter?
>
>Dr. William W. Fitzhugh, Director of the Arctic Studies Center
>and Curator in the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of
>Natural History, Smithsonian Institution and Dr. Brigitta L.
>Wallace, Parks Canada. Both are "obviously" members of the
>conspiracy to preclude giving the pre-Columbian Norse credit for
>their visits to North America :) This is particularly "true" of
>Wallace who has been in charge of doing excavations at L'Anse aux
>Meadows and who, last I checked, argues that the actual location
>of Vinland is not LAM, but someplace to the south.
She must have been reading Kare Pritz.
Eric Stevens
"Response to Dr James Knirk's Essay on the Kensington Runestone",
Richard Nielsen, Journal of Scandinavian Studies, Volume 72.1, Spring
2001.
I understand some may also be forthcoming on the recent physical
investigations.
Steve Marcus
As usual, Eric has a problem with English. From the URL provided
by Eric:
"This design is very similar to *a* type apparently used by
pupils of the French Revolutionary Military Academy Ecole de
Mars, apparently in the year 1794 - perhaps 1795 - *only*. *I
have no aspirations that this might be that exact style sword,
although this design was clearly created from that original
pattern*. (Emphasis added.)
There is nothing on the website that suggests that there was only
ONE type of sword commissioned by the Ecole de Mars, as indicated
by the first two emphasized portions of the text. The last
sentence indicates that the illustration is merely of a sword
that was perhaps patterned on one type of Ecole de Mars sword.
I post the above to forestall the argument that the sword in the
URL appears "different" from, or "insufficiently similar to, the
Ulen sword (which, of course was made in *1805*) for the latter
to have been commissioned by the former.
>
> An illustration of the Ulen sword can be found at
> http://www.geocities.com/netnoaide/ulen.html The identification of the
> type and dating of the details on this sword on this page appears to
> be incorrect.
>
> A range of Viking swords can be seen at
> http://images.google.com/images?q=viking+sword&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
>
> A range of medieval swords can be seen at
> http://images.google.com/images?num=20&q=medieval+sword&btnG=Google+Search
>
> A comparison between a Viking and a 15th century sword can be seen at
> http://www.vikingsword.com/mainfm.html After studying this and reading
> the text below it will be seen that Steve Marcus does not know what he
> is taling about when it comes to identifying swords.
While I don't pretend to understand what you think that the above
images prove, other than that the Ulen sword bears a resemblance
to a Viking or medieval Norse sword only in that it too is a
sword, I have never alleged that I have any expertise in
identifying swords. My points were that a) the Ulen sword has
been identified by experts as not being a pre-Columbian Norse
artifact, and b) that Holand did a poor job of science in
alleging that the Ulen sword was of Norse provenance, circa
pre-Columbian. My knowing one sword from another has nothing to
do with it.
On the contrary, Eric, what you have shown above is two things:
1. There is no way that Holand should have ventured *any*
opinion that the Ulen sword even "might" have had a pre-Columbian
Norse provenance, if for no other reason than, as my source
indicated, and as you quote me as having written: "I didn't say
"shorter" than the typical Norse sword. I said about half the
size. That means more than length; I take it to mean that it's
smaller in all proportions than Viking or medieval European
swords which, according to my reference, generally had two-handed
hilts." (Which agrees with what your ONN source wrote when
stating that the Ulen sword was a "mistake or a purposeful
fraud": "First of all, the blade is too narrow and light in its
design." I note that your ONN source correctly describes the
Ulen sword as late 1700's to early 1800's, while the source that
you identify as "Del Tin" identified the sword as 15-16th century
"if his memory was accurate.")
2. You (and Mike Zalar before you) wish to give Holand a pass on
the basis that "he did what he could do". Therefore, you have
tried to change the discussion from "what Holand did and whether
that reflects good scientific practice" to "whether Steve Marcus
is an expert in swords". While I never claimed to know anything
more about swords than what I have read regarding the Ulen sword,
I still don't see that you have pointed to anything that I wrote
about swords (Viking or medieval Norse or pre-Columbian Norse)
that is inaccurate.
But the key point is that advancing any hypothesis regarding the
origins of the Ulen sword without having something solid to go on
was poor science. And Holand did more than merely allege what
the Ulen sword's origin "might be", didn't he Eric? He
publicized the Ulen sword in a book (or was it two books) about
pre-Columbian Norse visitation to North America. So while you
feel free to categorize Brigitta Wallace as a "liar" when she may
well have had any number of reasons for continuing to support
Wahlgren in the face of Hall's criticisms of Wahlgren (ranging
from simply not having read what Hall wrote to simply disagreeing
with it; scholars disagree all the time, don' they), you don't
see anything "wrong" with Holand alleging what an artifact
"might" be based upon little more than the Minnesota location of
an otherwise unprovenanced find, coupled with the fact that the
artifact was a generic type of weapon of the sort that
pre-Columbian Norse also used.
That's just a variation of the old Eric Stevens double standard
though, isn't it. If it's "mainstream science", there's always
room for doubt and criticism. That's called "keeping an open
mind". If it's "alternative science", then doubt and criticism
aren't allowed, because belief in "alternative science" is called
"keeping an open mind". A nice confidence game, if you can get
away with it.
> Eric Stevens
>
> My new email address:- eric.s...@sum.co.nz
Steve
Eric Stevens
<barbm...@erols.com> wrote:
I don't why this should be necessary. The meaning which Steve Marcus
found necessary to highlight should have been obvious to anyone who
read the page referred to.
>
>There is nothing on the website that suggests that there was only
>ONE type of sword commissioned by the Ecole de Mars, as indicated
>by the first two emphasized portions of the text. The last
>sentence indicates that the illustration is merely of a sword
>that was perhaps patterned on one type of Ecole de Mars sword.
Nor is there anything to suggest that there may have been more than
one type. Cadet swords are cadet swords and will have been made to a
general specification irrespective of the details of the decoration.
>
>I post the above to forestall the argument that the sword in the
>URL appears "different" from, or "insufficiently similar to, the
>Ulen sword (which, of course was made in *1805*) for the latter
>to have been commissioned by the former.
>
>>
>> An illustration of the Ulen sword can be found at
>> http://www.geocities.com/netnoaide/ulen.html The identification of the
>> type and dating of the details on this sword on this page appears to
>> be incorrect.
>>
>> A range of Viking swords can be seen at
>> http://images.google.com/images?q=viking+sword&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
>>
>> A range of medieval swords can be seen at
>> http://images.google.com/images?num=20&q=medieval+sword&btnG=Google+Search
>>
>> A comparison between a Viking and a 15th century sword can be seen at
>> http://www.vikingsword.com/mainfm.html After studying this and reading
>> the text below it will be seen that Steve Marcus does not know what he
>> is taling about when it comes to identifying swords.
>
>While I don't pretend to understand what you think that the above
>images prove, other than that the Ulen sword bears a resemblance
>to a Viking or medieval Norse sword only in that it too is a
>sword, I have never alleged that I have any expertise in
>identifying swords.
Tou have alleged that the Ulen sword could not have been a Viking
sword because the the Medieval, and by inference, Viking swords were
two handed swords. This shows that while you were right about the
Medieval sword (not surprising seeing you had a picture) you were
wrong about the size of the Viking sword. The Viking sword is clearly
a one-handed sword as you were told at the time.
>My points were that a) the Ulen sword has
>been identified by experts as not being a pre-Columbian Norse
>artifact, and b) that Holand did a poor job of science in
>alleging that the Ulen sword was of Norse provenance, circa
>pre-Columbian. My knowing one sword from another has nothing to
>do with it.
The evidence in this case is that you did not know one kind of sword
from another.
---- vast snip ----
Inger E
once again, I think you better wait and see instead of saying more things
you will have to regret that you didn't comprehend due to the fact that you
don't have all details necessary.
Inger E
"George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C39F601...@ihug.co.nz...
Inger E
once again, I think you better wait and see instead of saying more things
you will have to regret that you didn't comprehend due to the fact that you
don't have all details necessary.
Inger E
"George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C39F601...@ihug.co.nz...
Mark Greene
>at least one of them have ended up with
>a metallurgic report that supports the Pre-Columbian Age and the usuage of
>"Swedish" methods used to produce the Iron????
Who did the metalurgy? What technique did they use and what criteria did they
set for establishing the date? And what is meant by "swedish" methods?
And for sake of clarity, I am not being sarcastic, I have a basis of knowledge
for the questions I ask and am seriously hoping you have specific answers.
--
mark
Quantum Express: When you absolutely, positively, don't know
where it's going or when it needs to be there. - RazorJAK in a.g.
Inger E
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:38nk3u8ljtb9ckhn5...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 20:54:08 -0800, Steve Marcus
> <barbm...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >Eric Stevens wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 19:19:21 -0800, Steve Marcus
> >> <barbm...@erols.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Inger E wrote:
Steve wrote:
> >I post the above to forestall the argument that the sword in the
> >URL appears "different" from, or "insufficiently similar to, the
> >Ulen sword (which, of course was made in *1805*) for the latter
> >to have been commissioned by the former.
> >
> >>
> >> An illustration of the Ulen sword can be found at
> >> http://www.geocities.com/netnoaide/ulen.html The identification of the
> >> type and dating of the details on this sword on this page appears to
> >> be incorrect.
> >>
> >> A range of Viking swords can be seen at
> >> http://images.google.com/images?q=viking+sword&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
> >>
> >> A range of medieval swords can be seen at
> >>
http://images.google.com/images?num=20&q=medieval+sword&btnG=Google+Search
> >>
> >> A comparison between a Viking and a 15th century sword can be seen at
> >> http://www.vikingsword.com/mainfm.html After studying this and reading
> >> the text below it will be seen that Steve Marcus does not know what he
> >> is taling about when it comes to identifying swords.
> >
> >While I don't pretend to understand what you think that the above
> >images prove, other than that the Ulen sword bears a resemblance
> >to a Viking or medieval Norse sword only in that it too is a
> >sword, I have never alleged that I have any expertise in
> >identifying swords.
So why do you talk about things you don't know? Take a look at almost any
photo of a painting with the Swedish King Erik of Pommern on it(he inherited
Sweden after Queen Margaretha, queen of Denmark Norway and Sweden and the
widow after King Magnus Eriksson's son Hakon/Håkon. On all pictures I have
looked at where a sword is shown one or two man have the exact upper
ornament as on the Ulen-sword with the "ringled" ornament and the top. the
crosspart aren't the same on all, but on some.
>
> Tou have alleged that the Ulen sword could not have been a Viking
> sword because the the Medieval, and by inference, Viking swords were
> two handed swords. This shows that while you were right about the
> Medieval sword (not surprising seeing you had a picture) you were
> wrong about the size of the Viking sword. The Viking sword is clearly
> a one-handed sword as you were told at the time.
Eric, the vikings had two types + a thing in between of a sword and a pilk.
>
> >My points were that a) the Ulen sword has
> >been identified by experts as not being a pre-Columbian Norse
> >artifact,
Would you care to give the name and the quotation for those
"identifications"? Would you consider the obvious fact that if you can do so
you only proven that those expert sized to accomplish their object due to
their lack of comparing it with a pre-Columbian Swedish sword, for example
swords owned by the Noblemen in Östergötland's triangle(the one I spoke
about before) from where we btw know that a person in the so called Knutson
expedition origined.....
and b) that Holand did a poor job of science in
> >alleging that the Ulen sword was of Norse provenance, circa
> >pre-Columbian. My knowing one sword from another has nothing to
> >do with it.
Yes it does Steve,
because you better read Holand's text in full before presenting assumptions
if they aren't presented from your own "knowing one sword from another". In
other case I must say that you don't act as a Scholar from the same standard
and moral as you suppose others to do.
>
> The evidence in this case is that you did not know one kind of sword
> from another.
Eric,
I second your line there.
Inger E