Re: (some) Old Templars do not die: they simply fade away.
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" wrote in message
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> See http://www.templarhistory.com/portugal.html
>>> Eric Stevens
>> Archaeology?
>
> Not relevant to archaeology at all. It's about the special case
> of Portugal, where the king did not want the properties of the
> Templars to be transferred to the Hospitallers after the
> suppression of the Templars. King Dinis claimed that the
> properties belonged to him personally, that the Templars were
> just usufructuaries. So the Pope had to let the king keep his
> properties and create a new military order of his own to succeed
> the Templars.
>
> Not relevant to the KRS either, although I imagine that Eric is
> hinting that something similar may have happened in Scandinavia.
> But there is one significant difference: We know that there were
> Templars in Portugal. Is there any evidence that there ever were
> Templars in Scandinavia?
>
> Alan
OK, I Eric want to discuss Templars in this way,
he can do so in soc.history.medieval.
Reposted there.
--
p.a.
Alan Crozier
"IE J" <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in message
news:ucqHf.44442$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net...
>
> "Alan Crozier" <name1...@telia.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:8gjHf.44395$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net...
> > "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> wrote in message
> > news:43edb841$0$20169$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> > > Eric Stevens wrote:
> > v0hqu154d45m8af05...@4ax.com,
Eric Stevens
<name1...@telia.com> wrote:
>>> Did the Templars have some sort of copyright on the croix
>>> pâtée? Was it never carved or painted or drawn by anyother
>>>Christians?
>>
>> Originally it was awarded to the Templars by Pope Eugenius and
>> it was their particular mark. If a Templar used a cross it _would_ be
>> a cross patee. I am not aware of any reason why it could not be used
>> by others.
>>
>> I would not expect non-Templars to use it prior to 1307 which
>> was the year when the pope issued a bull against the Templars. Nor
>> would I expect non-Templars to use it in the years immediately
>> following 1307 when great stigma might be attached to being a Templar.
>> Not that my expectations have much to do with what might actually have
>> happened.
>>
>> The least you can say is that if something is marked by a
>> cross patee then it has the potential to be linked to the Templars in
>> some way. I would go further and say that in the 14th and even 15th
>> centuries the use of the cross patee marks a probable Templar connection.
>
>>Even though the Templars did not exist then?
There are many indications that not all parts of the organisation dies
until some time after 1307. In fact, nobody seems to know when the
last vestiges of the organisation disappeared, if they dissappeared at
all.
>
>Has anyone got the text in which Pope Eugenius III awarded the
>Templars the croix patee as their emblem? Did it mean that ONLY
>the templars could use it? Did it specify an exact shape? The
>croix patee seems to have taken a variety of forms.
There is an awful lot of information in http://tinyurl.com/c3vho but I
can get at hardly any of it.
>
>What would have happened to this presumed exclusive right to the
>croix patee after the Templars were dissolved? Did it pass with
>the Templars' other property to the Hospitallers (except in
>Portugal)?
See http://www.chivalricorders.org/vatican/christ.htm
and http://www.thornr.demon.co.uk/kchrist/overview.html
>
>If we find a gravestone on Gotland dated pre-1307 with a croix
>patee, does it mean that the man under the stone could only have
>been a templar? If so, does this mean that there was a Templar
>preceptory on Gotland (i.e. that the Templars were organized
>there), or might it just mean that this man had been abroad and
>joined the Templars somewhere else where they WERE organized?
The discovery raises the possibility/probability that the man under
the stone had a Templar connection. I don't know whether or not the
Templars had preceptory on Gotland. I can find no non-contentious
source which even suggests their presence.
>
>A lot of questions, I know, for Eric or whoever can answer them.
>
>Another point about Portugal. We are perhaps supposed to believe
>that the Templars there simply carried on after their
>dissolution, although under a new name: the Order of Christ,
>confirmed by the Pope in 1319 and with the Pope as patron. From
>the url with which Eric started this non-archaeological thread,
>we see that it wasn't that simple. Gil Martins, the man
>appointed as the master of the new Order was not an ex-Templar.
>He was former master of a different order, the Order of Avis.r
>Quote:
>
>"Martins' past experience with military orders was probably the
>catalyst that allowed the order to quickly expand to 69 knights
>by 1321."
>
>This doesn't sound to me as if the Order of Christ was merely a
>continuation of the Templars under a new name. A completely new
>order was created by the king, perhaps completely new men were
>admitted to it?
It has been argued that many Templars joined the new organisation.
>Would the Pope have accepted the admission of
>men from the discredited and excommunicated order dissolved a
>few years previously by his predecessor?
I gather that at that time it was not entirely up to the pope.
>
>Returning to Sweden while bearing this in mind, I think that
>Scott Wolter's claim, "It is hard to imagine that the Templars
>even missed a beat in Sweden", is based on two unproven
>assumptions: that there were organized Templars in Sweden to
>begin with, and that they carried on unperturbed after the
>dissolution, avoiding the Pope's excommunication by changing the
>name of their order of joining a different order.
The only order they could have joined was the Teutonic Knights.
>
>I'd like to see some hard evidence instead of guesswork.
>
Me too.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
>[...]
> The discovery raises the possibility/probability that the man under
> the stone had a Templar connection. I don't know whether or not the
> Templars had preceptory on Gotland. I can find no non-contentious
> source which even suggests their presence.
"That you have not yet seen the evidence does not help"
(ES today)
--
p.a.
IE J
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
news:43f05e46$0$17975$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
Peter,
are you sure? I have seen a photo of the grave. Up to December you could
find it on net. A Gotlandic site.
Not up now.
Inger E
>
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" skrev
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> The discovery raises the possibility/probability that the man under
>>> the stone had a Templar connection. I don't know whether or not the
>>> Templars had preceptory on Gotland. I can find no non-contentious
>>> source which even suggests their presence.
>>> [...]
>> "That you have not yet seen the evidence does not help"
>> (ES today)
> Peter,
> are you sure? I have seen a photo of the grave. Up to December you
> could find it on net. A Gotlandic site.
> Not up now.
I think you are missing the point here.
--
p.a.
IE J
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
No you and many others are. There existed Knights Templars in Sweden. Make
no mistake about that.
http://62.20.57.212/ra/medeltid/FMPro?-db=hk.fp5&-format=detail.html&-lay=we
bb&-sortfield=brevnummer&-op=cn&datum=1300...1400&-op=cn&inneh%e5ll=tempel&-
max=100&-recid=35135&-find=
in May 1312 the Pope sent a letter to the Archbishop of Uppsala and the
Bishops in Skara and Linköping(!) where the Pope demanded that all what the
Knights Templars owned should be given to the Johanniter Order. A Pope
demanded, but as you and the others will find if you look more closely on
the Swedish Religious History a Pope's demand wasn't carried out the way it
was in France. More like in Scotland, Ireland, Denmark and Norway. But of
course then you have to spend a lot of time reading before you understand
why the Templar's cross on the grave in Gotland is of importance!
Inger E
>
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
> news:43f083bf$0$85977$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
>> IE J wrote: news:2GZHf.44637$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net
>>> "Peter Alaca" skrev
>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> The discovery raises the possibility/probability that the man
>>>>> under the stone had a Templar connection. I don't know whether or
>>>>> not the Templars had preceptory on Gotland. I can find no
>>>>> non-contentious source which even suggests their presence.
>>>>> [...]
>>
>>>> "That you have not yet seen the evidence does not help"
>>>> (ES today)
>>
>>> Peter,
>>> are you sure? I have seen a photo of the grave. Up to December you
>>> could find it on net. A Gotlandic site.
>>> Not up now.
>>
>> I think you are missing the point here.
> No you and many others are. There existed Knights Templars in Sweden.
> Make no mistake about that.
>
> http://62.20.57.212/ra/medeltid/FMPro?-db=hk.fp5&-format=detail.html&-lay=we
> bb&-sortfield=brevnummer&-op=cn&datum=1300...1400&-op=cn&inneh%e5ll=tempel&-
> max=100&-recid=35135&-find=
>
> in May 1312 the Pope sent a letter to the Archbishop of Uppsala and
> the Bishops in Skara and Linköping(!) where the Pope demanded that
> all what the Knights Templars owned should be given to the Johanniter
> Order. A Pope demanded, but as you and the others will find if you
> look more closely on the Swedish Religious History a Pope's demand
> wasn't carried out the way it was in France. More like in Scotland,
> Ireland, Denmark and Norway. But of course then you have to spend a
> lot of time reading before you understand why the Templar's cross on
> the grave in Gotland is of importance!
>
> Inger E
I Still think you missed the point.
-
p.a.
Tron
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i melding
news:mqrvu1hflelb09psl...@4ax.com...
>
> The only order they could have joined was the Teutonic Knights.
>>
Do you mean "joined as knights" .... and if so, couldn't they have joined
another hospitaller order, like the Knights of St. John? Not as
crypto-Templars, but just joined them to become reg. knights in that order?
And was there anything barring them from entering any other order (say,
Franciscans) merely as reg. members?
Were they all e.g. excommunicated?
T
am...@hotmail.com
Tron wrote:
> "Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i melding
> news:mqrvu1hflelb09psl...@4ax.com...
> >
> > The only order they could have joined was the Teutonic Knights.
> >>
>
> Do you mean "joined as knights" .... and if so, couldn't they have joined
> another hospitaller order, like the Knights of St. John? Not as
> crypto-Templars, but just joined them to become reg. knights in that order?
IIRC, this is what happened more than once.
>
> And was there anything barring them from entering any other order (say,
> Franciscans) merely as reg. members?
> Were they all e.g. excommunicated?
AFAIK, they were not. Which means that nothing would prevent them from
joining
another order.
IE J
"Tron" <tron...@frizurf.no> skrev i meddelandet
news:1fGdnWkrxqD...@telenor.com...
Tron,
you are on the right track. Not completely but almost.
The former Knights of the Templars could still be Knights of the Templars,
what's been missed is the so called Chinon parchment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinon_Parchment found in the Vatican Secret
archieve the other year.
(Yes Doug, it's the same as I hinted on both before and after an article was
published about it by the finder of the documents. I had heard from private
sources in Rome that they had been found)
The Chinon parchment for those who aren't familiar with them show that the
Pope absolved the Templars and that it was due to a betrayal by the Frank
King that the Grand Master of the Templars were burnt.
It was due to this secret absolvation the Pope sent request to Scotland,
Ireland, Denmark and Norway as well as to the Bishops of Skara and Linköping
in Sweden to get a better picture of what the Knights Templars owned and it
was due to that the Johanniter Order was given the 'rights' by the Pope to
the Templars owned property and wealth.
Some areas among them Mallorca and Portugal which the Pope after 1308 took
the Templars owned farms etc directly under the Vatican under which Templars
who declared themselves loyal with the Papal Church could continue to work,
they worked together with the Holy Grave Order.
In Scotland, Ireland, Norway and areas under Linköping's Bishop's See with
close contacts with the Christian churches and monestries in Gotland and the
Baltic since early mission days, the Templars worked together with the Grey
Friars. That was the reason why Nicholas of Lynn helped the Norse and the
Sinclairs.
Inger E
>
am...@hotmail.com
IE J wrote:
> "Tron" <tron...@frizurf.no> skrev i meddelandet
> news:1fGdnWkrxqD...@telenor.com...
> >
> > "Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i melding
> > news:mqrvu1hflelb09psl...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > The only order they could have joined was the Teutonic Knights.
> > >>
> >
> > Do you mean "joined as knights" .... and if so, couldn't they have joined
> > another hospitaller order, like the Knights of St. John? Not as
> > crypto-Templars, but just joined them to become reg. knights in that
> order?
> >
> > And was there anything barring them from entering any other order (say,
> > Franciscans) merely as reg. members?
> > Were they all e.g. excommunicated?
> >
> > T
>
> Tron,
> you are on the right track. Not completely but almost.
>
> The former Knights of the Templars could still be Knights of the Templars,
They could not after their order was disbanded by the reason quite
obvious: there was
no order of the Knights Templars anymore. They could become members of
some
_other_ order providing they were not _personally_ accussed of a
heresy, etc.
The story about Papal secret absolution (even if true) is irrelevant
because
it did not cancel an official disbandment of the order.
Alan Crozier
>
>
> No you and many others are. There existed Knights Templars in
Sweden. Make
> no mistake about that.
>
>
http://62.20.57.212/ra/medeltid/FMPro?-db=hk.fp5&-format=detail.html&-lay=we
>
bb&-sortfield=brevnummer&-op=cn&datum=1300...1400&-op=cn&inneh%e
5ll=tempel&-
> max=100&-recid=35135&-find=
People might find the document better with this link:
http://tinyurl.com/8s2yg
> in May 1312 the Pope sent a letter to the Archbishop of
Uppsala and the
> Bishops in Skara and Linköping(!) where the Pope demanded that
all what the
> Knights Templars owned should be given to the Johanniter
Order. A Pope
> demanded, but as you and the others will find if you look more
closely on
> the Swedish Religious History a Pope's demand wasn't carried
out the way it
> was in France. More like in Scotland, Ireland, Denmark and
Norway. But of
> course then you have to spend a lot of time reading before you
understand
> why the Templar's cross on the grave in Gotland is of
importance!
That letter shows only that the pope wrote asking about the
seizure of any Templar property in those dioceses. It does not
show that there was any Templar property there, nor any Templar
preceptories. Swedish historians have no evidence of any
organized Templars in Sweden.
The pope also wrote to the Danish king, Erik Menved, asking him
to arrest any Templars in his kingdom. But Danish historians
have no evidence of any templars in Denmark.
It just looks as if the popes wrote to the bishops and rulers in
all the Catholic countries to ensure that the arrest of the
Templars and the seizure of their property was implemented. The
letters could even go to countries where there were no organized
Templars, just in case.
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Peter Alaca
> "IE J" wrote
That is exactly what I thought.
--
p.a.
Peter Alaca
Every time again I am very surprised to see
that Wikipedia is your primary source.
And then, nothing of what you write about
that document is from that wiki page.
You are not even able to give more relevant
sources.
--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°
Alan Crozier
Actually, that Wikipedia stub did lead to a serious academic
article in the Journal of Medieval History:
http://tinyurl.com/a6tgq
I didn't want to spend $30 dollars to read the whole article and
they don't have it in JStore. Have you got any contacts at
Elsevier (fellow freemasons, that sort of thing)?
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
>
>
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I did not say I had seen *no* evidence.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
No, no contacts there, and Elsevier is also a very
expencive publisher.
--
p.a.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i melding
>news:mqrvu1hflelb09psl...@4ax.com...
>>
>> The only order they could have joined was the Teutonic Knights.
>>>
>
>Do you mean "joined as knights" .... and if so, couldn't they have joined
>another hospitaller order, like the Knights of St. John? Not as
>crypto-Templars, but just joined them to become reg. knights in that order?
You are correct, I did mean joined as knights with similar rules and
ambitions.
>
>And was there anything barring them from entering any other order (say,
>Franciscans) merely as reg. members?
Franciscans were not a militant order.
>Were they all e.g. excommunicated?
>
I don't think so.
Eric Stevens
Erik Hammerstad
The Vatican's version:
http://asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1308.htm
The 2002 Times story on the find:
http://northernway.org/saints.html
Not surprisingly, the conslusions to be drawn seem rather
different than what IEJ says. And a quick search does not back up
her claim of having hinted to the paper before.
Alan Crozier
message news:45c9sgF...@individual.net...
Thanks for the link, Erik.
This is getting complicated. As I understand it, the Pope signed
a document saying, "We hereby decree that they are absolved by
the church and may again receive Christian sacraments". But he
did not make this decree public because he was prevented by King
Phillip of France. In other words, to the outside world, de
Molay must have remained unabsolved and the Templars still
officially excommunicated. The Pope salved his conscience in
secret, but the Templars remained banned. And a few years later
the Pope was writing around making sure that Templar property
was seized and transferred to the Hospitallers.
Erik Hammerstad
> Peter Alaca wrote:
>
>> Alan Crozier wrote: news:dk5If.44715$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net
>>
>>> "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> wrote in message
>>> news:43f0db6c$0$88087$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
>>>
>>>> IE J wrote: news:8t3If.44693$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net
<snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> The former Knights of the Templars could still be Knights of the
>>>>> Templars, what's been missed is the so called Chinon parchment
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinon_Parchment found in the Vatican
>>>>> Secret archieve the other year.
>>>>> (Yes Doug, it's the same as I hinted on both before and after an
>>>>> article was published about it by the finder of the documents. I had
>>>>> heard from private sources in Rome that they had been found)
>>>>>
<snip>
> And a quick search does not back up her claim of having
> hinted to the paper before.
Sorry but actually IEJ has mentioned the Chinon Parchment before,
in a Kensington thread dated June 23 last year. But she did not
follow up on the following questions from Alaca.
IE J
Have you spoken to Dick Harrison lately? In one of the other forums, not in
these discussiongroups, there were a discussion between archaeologists and
scholars of history where someone refered to Dick's book about the Jarl and
a lecture DH had held discussing subject about Knights of the Jerusalem
Orders.
It's also noted in Vatican documents that there were Templars in
Scandinavia.
Inger E
IE J
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
And neither your nor Alan's thoughts are correct.
But neither of you are a scholar of History or Religion, are you?
Inger E
>
> --
> p.a.
>
IE J
Alan,
isn't the article available at UB in Lund?
Inger E
IE J
the Pope DID make that decree. It's signed by him and it's much more to the
story, which Erik H as usual either aren't familiar with or try to hide. Not
surprisingly as Erik H tries to say about me. But Erik H is way out of his
own speciality..... and present as usual not correct information at all.
You better read the full article.
The Pope did send representants first to question the Templars, the he asked
to free them,
at that point this decree was brought with them,
but the king of France betrayed the Pope.
That story is very well known by all who studied the subject.
Inger E
>
t(nospam)kavanagh
If they are not, neither are you.
tk
Peter Alaca
What do you know as a childrens bible teacher?
--
p.a.
Peter Alaca
> Alan,
> the Pope DID make that decree. It's signed by him and it's much more
> to the story, which Erik H as usual either aren't familiar with or
> try to hide. Not surprisingly as Erik H tries to say about me. But
> Erik H is way out of his own speciality..... and present as usual not
> correct information at all.
>
> You better read the full article.
You never read it yourself. Al you know is from wikipedia.
Alan Crozier
> Alan,
> isn't the article available at UB in Lund?
No, they don't have that journal in Lund. Is there anything in
it that isn't in this longer work by Frale?
http://www.storia.unifi.it/_RM/rivista/sched/lib/Frale_I.pdf
Alan
Eric Stevens
The so-called 'disbandment' of the order did no more than take away
official recognition. The organisation, as such, came into existence
before official recognition by the pope. There is no reason why the
parts of it that were not destroyed could not continue without formal
papal recognitoin.
Eric Stevens
Alan Crozier
Funny you should mention Dick Harrison in support of your
arguments, because he supports mine 100 per cent. So I have to
thank you for drawing my attention to him. In his book about the
crusades he writes (my hasty translation):
"There is nothing to suggest that the Templars themselves fought
in the Baltic crusades. ... they administered properties in
Western Europe and France, but also in the British Isles and the
Pyrenean kingdoms. In Germany and Italy the order had fewer
properties. The closest the Templars came to the northern
crusade
front was a small possession between the Vistula and the Bug in
eastern Poland in the mid-13th century. ... The Order of the
Brethren of the Sword have rightly been perceived as a northern
imitation of the Templars. ... It cannot be ruled out that
occasional Scandinavians joined the Templars, but there is no
documentary evidence for this. ... attempts to link the Templars
to Nordic latitudes by proceeding from cross symbols in churches
belong in the world of fiction rather than historical
scholarship. In a medieval society without generally recognized
power authorities it was impossible to maintain strict rules for
how such symbols should be used, so crosses like those in
Forshem Church in Västergötland cannot be linked to any
particular organization. Anyone who wants to find Nordic
Templars should search in the documents, and there they are
conspicuous by their absence."
> It's also noted in Vatican documents that there were Templars
in
> Scandinavia.
References?
Uwe Müller
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:nb13v1p57k00t8851...@4ax.com...
Since 'the order' was destroyed, it could not continue without a formal
papal recognition. Members of the order, that were not killed or imprisoned,
would of course continue living, but not as 'the order' or as parts of it.
You are mixing up apples and potatoes here, the pre-papal-recognition
society was different from the papal recognized 'order'.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
IE J
Can't say for sure. Have to check it out. BUT my old computer doesn't like
pdf-files so I have to open it in my daughter's..... it's not in this room.
Have to return with an answer.
Inger E
IE J
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:nb13v1p57k00t8851...@4ax.com...
It also did continue with formal papal recognition within an other Order.
Inger E
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Alan Crozier
Details? Names? References?
And remember, there there were no Swedish Templars to continue
in any other order. If you have contradictory evidence that Dick
Harrison and other historians do not know of, you really should
present it.
Alan
IE J
I haven't spoken to Dick since last summer. I only read about the lectures
he has held and I checked one of the quoted part in a discussion from his
book, not the same as you refer to since it's not discussed at all if the
Templars participated in the Swedish crusades to the Baltic. Of which the
first took place 1150. I doubt that any Templars participated in that one
nor in the one 1238.
http://www.tacitus.nu/historisk-atlas/skandinavien/finland.htm
The third 'crusade' was more of a trying to retake the initiativ over the
religious cituation due to the influence from the Ortodox Church.
Thus the quote of yours aren't sufficient to say what Dick think or doesn't
think in the Templars being in Sweden and Gotland. That's an other question.
>
>
> > It's also noted in Vatican documents that there were Templars
> in
> > Scandinavia.
>
> References?
Same archieve = same Pope and earlier as mentioned before. More about the
Templars and the Pope can be found in "Lives of the Popes " from 1685.
Inger E
IE J
As I said in re.Dick Harrison is that he has given other information in
question of the Knights here in Sweden when he had lectures in Västergötland
and in Stockholm areas. I hadn't a chance to be there listning to it so all
I have is second hand information and also a ref to an article where it
doesn't seem as if you are right when it comes to the close contacts after
1308 between the Templars and the Holy Graves Order.
Shall you or I send a request to him asking him of his position today?
Inger E
Alan Crozier
His position today hasn't changed. He mailed me that quotation
at 11.27 today. I asked him if there was any evidence that the
Templars were ever established in Scandinavia. His answer was
"Nix" plus that quotation.
Nice try, Inger.
Eric Stevens
<uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
--- snip ---
>> >They could not after their order was disbanded by the reason quite
>> >obvious: there was
>> >no order of the Knights Templars anymore. They could become members of
>> >some
>> >_other_ order providing they were not _personally_ accussed of a
>> >heresy, etc.
>> >
>> >The story about Papal secret absolution (even if true) is irrelevant
>> >because
>> >it did not cancel an official disbandment of the order.
>> >
>>
>> The so-called 'disbandment' of the order did no more than take away
>> official recognition. The organisation, as such, came into existence
>> before official recognition by the pope. There is no reason why the
>> parts of it that were not destroyed could not continue without formal
>> papal recognitoin.
>>
>
>Since 'the order' was destroyed, it could not continue without a formal
>papal recognition. Members of the order, that were not killed or imprisoned,
>would of course continue living, but not as 'the order' or as parts of it.
>
>You are mixing up apples and potatoes here, the pre-papal-recognition
>society was different from the papal recognized 'order'.
I don't agree with you there, at least about what might have happened
after 1307. The formally recognised organisation had existed for much
more than a century, complete with it's formal rules and regulations,
internal hierarchy and traditions. That under political pressure the
pope took away formal recognition would have little effect on the
motivations of the more remote parts of the organisation not subject
to physical arrest and attack. Even depriving them of their assets
would not destroy the bonds of fellowship which held them together.
I'm not using this argument to support any particular outcome. All I
am saying it would not surprise me to find that parts of the original
Templar organisation survived with members continuing to think and
behave as Templars. We know in fact that this is more or less what
happened in Portugal with Royal sanction, even though they no longer
called themselves Templars.
I am not claiming that groups of Templars DID continue as such after
the formal destruction of the order in 1307. However, I do say that it
would not be surprising if one or more groups of Templars survived
after 1307 and the mere fact that we presently have no direct evidence
of this should not be taken as meaning that such a continuation
definitely did not happen.
The trappings of history have many frayed edges and should not be
regarded as though it is a precisely tailored garment. We don't know
how many pockets it had originally, let alone what was in them. Some
speculation about their possible contents is permitted.
Eric Stevens
Tron
>>
...
While speculating ... isn't the the interest re the continued/continuing
existence of the Templars based on the premise that they had access to some
special kind of knowledge - something to "trahere"?
Candidates would be:
- military science (but that would not be a Templar exclusive)
- banking
- science, or at least scholarship (e.g. medicine, architecture ...)
- some deep fantastic secret like the Sang Real; anything hinted at by their
supposed heresies; some power as demonstrated in the tale of de Molay's
curse .... etc.
AND
That under political pressure the
> pope took away formal recognition would have little effect on the
> motivations of the more remote parts of the organisation not subject
> to physical arrest and attack. Even depriving them of their assets
> would not destroy the bonds of fellowship which held them together.
Well, before "management" became a "science" .... before industries like
banking acquired (written) theory, perhaps formal organization and actual
physical assets _did_ embody the knowledge that was, and depriving the
Templars of it actually _did_ destroy them. A bit like falling apart on
retirement.
One should expect personal relations to endure at least for as long as the
ex-templars lived, unless there was a climate of relentless persecution. But
what of it? Old men who had contact with their once upon a time
comrades-in-arms does not a secret order make.
>
> I'm not using this argument to support any particular outcome. All I
> am saying it would not surprise me to find that parts of the original
> Templar organisation survived with members continuing to think and
> behave as Templars. We know in fact that this is more or less what
> happened in Portugal with Royal sanction, even though they no longer
> called themselves Templars.
Predicated on retaining property.
>
> I am not claiming that groups of Templars DID continue as such after
> the formal destruction of the order in 1307. However, I do say that it
> would not be surprising if one or more groups of Templars survived
> after 1307 and the mere fact that we presently have no direct evidence
> of this should not be taken as meaning that such a continuation
> definitely did not happen.
I made that list above as a basis for further speculaton on what this
continuation would consist in, what would be the substance of it.
Templar generals? Any known?
Templar bankers? A possible candidate. Did any famous banking houses sport
Templar connections? Or did any famous banking houses take part in the
destruction of the Templars? Was there a flurry of banks founded in 1312?
Stripping the Templars of wealth and chapter houses could well mean the end
of Holy Savings inc.
Famous Templar doctors? Or even continuing hospitals? Famous Templar
architects? I know there are many circular churches around ... achtort and
all that .... but still no basis for secrets to keep them going to this very
day.
Only something like the Templars as da Vinci encoders would _necessitate_
their continued existence, even if underground. The secretive natur of
secrets is of coure a major obstacle when looking for references. The very
lack of evidence is of course a powerful indicator of a very, very secret
society, and there the circle locks.
And if de Molay had all these powers, he probably wouldn't have been quite
the sitting duck.
My bet is that the Templars fascinate because they were unsettling.
The were unsettling in matters of religion. "The accusations would have to
be true, or the Pope is evil"; and if they were true, then the elite
soldiers of Christ were nasty heretics - snakes in Eden any which way.
And they were unsettling in a secular way, or at least financially, what
with their disappeared treasure. Perhaps those eager to locate it were the
ones motivated to construe any continuation, as a working assumption.
The one single feature of genius in the DVC is of course positing a goal, a
special obligation, a purpose for these secret knights. What is the point of
powers alone, if you have no task to fulfill? Basic narratological rule.
T
IE J
It wasn't a try. It was what I have heard from those who listened to him.
They obviously got it wrong. Thus I am wrong about his position in the
question. No matter which there are documents pointing to a complete other
answer. Looking around I found that scholars abroad reached same conclusion.
I will return with quotes.
Inger E
IE J
There might have been Templar doctors, that I don't know for sure. Those I
am aware of all were either Politicians officially working close to the
Catholic Church and/or Military/Police leaders.
> Only something like the Templars as da Vinci encoders would _necessitate_
> their continued existence, even if underground. The secretive natur of
> secrets is of coure a major obstacle when looking for references. The very
> lack of evidence is of course a powerful indicator of a very, very secret
> society, and there the circle locks.
da Vinci never was one of them.
>
> And if de Molay had all these powers, he probably wouldn't have been quite
> the sitting duck.
>
I guess you don't know all the story re what happened how and why. The works
around the Chinon parchment is well worth reading.
>
> My bet is that the Templars fascinate because they were unsettling.
> The were unsettling in matters of religion. "The accusations would have to
> be true, or the Pope is evil"; and if they were true, then the elite
> soldiers of Christ were nasty heretics - snakes in Eden any which way.
> And they were unsettling in a secular way, or at least financially, what
> with their disappeared treasure. Perhaps those eager to locate it were the
> ones motivated to construe any continuation, as a working assumption.
Your thoughts, not mine.
>
> The one single feature of genius in the DVC is of course positing a goal,
a
> special obligation, a purpose for these secret knights. What is the point
of
> powers alone, if you have no task to fulfill? Basic narratological rule.
They did and do have a purpose. I am not talking of the re-born copies of
them. Only about the real ones. The secret they guard is much more
complicated then anyone put forward here and it hasn't anything at all to do
with MM.
Inger E
>
> T
>
>
Tron
"IE J" <inger_e....@telia.com> skrev i melding
news:7AsIf.44854$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net...
>
> They did and do have a purpose. I am not talking of the re-born copies of
> them. Only about the real ones. The secret they guard is much more
> complicated then anyone put forward here and it hasn't anything at all to
> do
> with MM.
What is it, then?
T
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i melding
>news:f4e4v119rinnfsn9l...@4ax.com...
>>>
>...
>
>While speculating ... isn't the the interest re the continued/continuing
>existence of the Templars based on the premise that they had access to some
>special kind of knowledge - something to "trahere"?
>
>Candidates would be:
>- military science (but that would not be a Templar exclusive)
>- banking
>- science, or at least scholarship (e.g. medicine, architecture ...)
>- some deep fantastic secret like the Sang Real; anything hinted at by their
>supposed heresies; some power as demonstrated in the tale of de Molay's
>curse .... etc.
>
>AND
>
> That under political pressure the
>> pope took away formal recognition would have little effect on the
>> motivations of the more remote parts of the organisation not subject
>> to physical arrest and attack. Even depriving them of their assets
>> would not destroy the bonds of fellowship which held them together.
>
>Well, before "management" became a "science" .... before industries like
>banking acquired (written) theory, perhaps formal organization and actual
>physical assets _did_ embody the knowledge that was, and depriving the
>Templars of it actually _did_ destroy them. A bit like falling apart on
>retirement.
You are suggesting an organisation like an ant colony, where the whole
is greater than the sum of the parts. I suppose that to an extent that
is true in the organisation is the tool which can be used by the
members to achieve their ends, whatever they might be. However, it may
be that after 1307 the primary 'end' of the surviving fragments was
preserving their survival, even if it meant going underground.
Destruction of the organisation would not mean the loss of knowledge
as long as sufficient members remained alive and free. At the worst,
destruction of the organisation would mean the end of the opportunity
to use their knowledge, whatever it may have been. There are hints
that it was deeply mathematical but quite how they used it (apart from
possibly building cathedrals) is a mystery.
>
>One should expect personal relations to endure at least for as long as the
>ex-templars lived, unless there was a climate of relentless persecution. But
>what of it? Old men who had contact with their once upon a time
>comrades-in-arms does not a secret order make.
They weren't all old. The survivors would have been of all ages.
>>
>> I'm not using this argument to support any particular outcome. All I
>> am saying it would not surprise me to find that parts of the original
>> Templar organisation survived with members continuing to think and
>> behave as Templars. We know in fact that this is more or less what
>> happened in Portugal with Royal sanction, even though they no longer
>> called themselves Templars.
>
>Predicated on retaining property.
... and power.
I don't think there is any point to free-wheeling speculation of this
kind. Speculation only becomes useful when no other known solution to
a problem exists, i.e. 'Here is a gap. I wonder what might go in it?'
Eric Stevens
prd
news:h4Odnb2ou54...@telenor.com by "Tron"
<tron...@frizurf.no> . . . :
Didn't you here her, its top secret, if she told you she would have
to abuse and stalk you.
Tom McDonald
<snip>
> They did and do have a purpose. I am not talking of the re-born copies of
> them. Only about the real ones. The secret they guard is much more
> complicated then anyone put forward here and it hasn't anything at all to do
> with MM.
FALSE!!
It has EVERYTHING to do with MM!!!
Look at the secret records of the construction of the Magick
Kingdom! Do you think it's a mere accident that everything was
built to a particular scale? NO! There was clearly a Plan at
work--and that Plan was both at the behest of, and as a home for, MM!
The vast treasure MM has amassed, the secretive nature of his
kingdom on earth, the inner government that has the power to
thumb its nose at any national or local government, the 'clubs'
for youth to brainwash them and recruit the best of them into
high positions in the kingdom--this has GOT to be a modern,
albeit secret, florescence of the Templars!
Of course, the story will be denied, and people will think this
view of mine paranoid. But the truth must be told, though it cost
me my life.
Tom McDonald
Funnily enough, I thought Tron's observations were fresh and
interesting. There is no point to putting down free-wheeling
speculation when the final truth is still in doubt. I'm
surprised, yet again, at your position on this.
Tron
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i melding
news:pon4v196oeqtta9j9...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:13:00 +0100, "Tron" <tron...@frizurf.no>
> wrote:
......
>>
>>Well, before "management" became a "science" .... before industries like
>>banking acquired (written) theory, perhaps formal organization and actual
>>physical assets _did_ embody the knowledge that was, and depriving the
>>Templars of it actually _did_ destroy them. A bit like falling apart on
>>retirement.
>
> You are suggesting an organisation like an ant colony, where the whole
> is greater than the sum of the parts. ....
No; the (very) abstract point is the difference between knowing and knowing
that you know.
(Bad example, but ...) If you asked a memeber of, say, the Bergen Hanse,
they might describe their activity as "going to Lofoten to buy fish, and
going to Lübeck to sell it", not "trading commodities to profit from the
differentials in supply and demand". The latter formula can be applied
everywhere, while the former _might_ cause problems for people who have
never really reflected on what it is they do, if e.g. Lübeck burned down.
(But of course the Hanse did reflect.)
When something - like banking - is very new, perhaps even the bankers are
not capable of "lifting off" the abstract process - really knowing what it
is they do - which is what you need to duplicate it in a different setting
if the first venue is cut off. Perhaps a bit like trial-and-error medicine
or alchemy; some things work, but no one knows why.
I think it is oft seen that it takes a generation or two after the
introduction of new technology before it is used to its full extent, used on
its own premises, so to speak. Why should this not be so with intellectual
technology, which, as must be admitted, is less tangible than a cannon?
A variation of the ant colony simile would perhaps be the "death of a snake
after the loss of the head". Particularly if the adherents themselves
believe that the head is what is important; like the followers of a throne
pretender disband if he should be killed - no reason for them to stay
together anymore. Elvis has left the building.
> Destruction of the organisation would not mean the loss of knowledge
> as long as sufficient members remained alive and free.
I would argue that it could. Not necessarily, but it could.
Old men who had contact with their once upon a time
>>comrades-in-arms does not a secret order make.
>
> They weren't all old. The survivors would have been of all ages.
Yes, but .... not for ever and ever?
...
> I don't think there is any point to free-wheeling speculation of this
> kind. Speculation only becomes useful when no other known solution to
> a problem exists, i.e. 'Here is a gap. I wonder what might go in it?'
Granted, I don't know much about the known solutions to the problem (if
there is a problem).
I speculated in order to try to find ways to locate gaps; which normally I
consider a legitimate phase of hypothesis construction, except that in my
own case the guesses are uneducated.
I'm also interested in what causes the widespread interest, which has little
to do with the Templars themselves, other than which parts of their legend
will kindle popular imagination.
Hence the question of what it was that the Templars were supposed to
continue; without some torch to pass along, why should they keep the chain
going?
T
Tron
Apropos banking and banking technology ....
..... their knowledge, whatever it may have been. There are hints
> that it was deeply mathematical but quite how they used it (apart from
> possibly building cathedrals) is a mystery.
Could it have been arcana of book-keeping?
Some economical activities do not seem very profitable to someone who isn't
skilled in arithmetics; calculation of interest and compund interest ....
Hence, I (courtesy of http://www.acaus.org/acc_his.html#5) give you .....
" ....Luca Pacioli was a true Renaissance man, with knowledge of literature,
art, mathematics, business and the sciences, at a time when few could even
read. Born about 1445 at Borgo San Sepulcro in Tuscany, Frater Luca
Bartolomes Pacioli acquired an amazing knowledge of diverse technical
subjects - religion, business, military science, mathematics, medicine, art,
music, law and language. He accepted the popular belief in the
inter-relatedness of these widely varying disciplines and in the special
importance of those, such as mathematics and accounting, which exhibit
harmony and balance.
His friend Leonardo da Vinci helped prepare the drawings for Pacioli's 1497
work, Divina Proportione; In turn, Pacioli is reputed to have calculated for
da Vinci the quantity of bronze needed for the artist's huge statue of Duke
Lidovico Sforza of Milan.
Around 1482, after completing his third treatise on mathematics, Pacioli,
who like many of his time sought preferment as a teacher, became a
Franciscan friar. He traveled throughout Italy lecturing on mathematics...."
Bookkeeper and architect? Friar and expert in military science? Friend of
Leonardo ...?
Say no more.
T
Eric Stevens
<tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>> I don't think there is any point to free-wheeling speculation of this
>> kind. Speculation only becomes useful when no other known solution to
>> a problem exists, i.e. 'Here is a gap. I wonder what might go in it?'
>
> Funnily enough, I thought Tron's observations were fresh and
>interesting. There is no point to putting down free-wheeling
>speculation when the final truth is still in doubt. I'm
>surprised, yet again, at your position on this.
It seems that no matter what I do, I'm wrong. :-)
I'm often accused of speculation in one form or another and it is true
that I do so speculate. But it's speculation to an end and I do it
when we have only part of the answer and I speculate about what it
might be that fills the gap.
What Tron seems to be doing is creating a speculation and then looking
for somewhere that it may fit. When this technique is applied to an
area where very little is known the danger is that we will end up with
a structure of glorious speculation almost entirely lacking in anchor
points to what is known. Now if Tron could identify a few anchor
points for his ideas then he might begin to find that he has got
something.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i melding
>news:pon4v196oeqtta9j9...@4ax.com...
>
>Apropos banking and banking technology ....
>
>..... their knowledge, whatever it may have been. There are hints
>> that it was deeply mathematical but quite how they used it (apart from
>> possibly building cathedrals) is a mystery.
>
>Could it have been arcana of book-keeping?
Well that was certainly developing at about that time with the
introduction of Arab numerals and decimals, and they could have played
a part in it cooperation with Fibonacci - see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci
>Some economical activities do not seem very profitable to someone who isn't
>skilled in arithmetics; calculation of interest and compund interest ....
>Hence, I (courtesy of http://www.acaus.org/acc_his.html#5) give you .....
>
>" ....Luca Pacioli was a true Renaissance man, with knowledge of literature,
>art, mathematics, business and the sciences, at a time when few could even
>read. Born about 1445 at Borgo San Sepulcro in Tuscany, Frater Luca
>Bartolomes Pacioli acquired an amazing knowledge of diverse technical
>subjects - religion, business, military science, mathematics, medicine, art,
>music, law and language. He accepted the popular belief in the
>inter-relatedness of these widely varying disciplines and in the special
>importance of those, such as mathematics and accounting, which exhibit
>harmony and balance.
>
>His friend Leonardo da Vinci helped prepare the drawings for Pacioli's 1497
>work, Divina Proportione; In turn, Pacioli is reputed to have calculated for
>da Vinci the quantity of bronze needed for the artist's huge statue of Duke
>Lidovico Sforza of Milan.
>
>Around 1482, after completing his third treatise on mathematics, Pacioli,
>who like many of his time sought preferment as a teacher, became a
>Franciscan friar. He traveled throughout Italy lecturing on mathematics...."
>
>Bookkeeper and architect? Friar and expert in military science? Friend of
>Leonardo ...?
A bit after the time of the Templars though.
Way back in the early days of computers a programmer was eventually
caught defrauding the bank. He had written a program to calculate
interest charges which rounded off the charges to the nearest cent.
However, his version of the program transferred that fraction of a
cent which was rounded down into an account he had created for
himself. All those fractions of a cent, up to half a cent at a time
quickly mounted up and when he was caught was worth more than $2m.
Well, that was the equivalent of the advantage that Fibonacci's
decimal system had over the conventional use of the abacus. The
rounding errors were dropped off at the end of each stage of the
calculation but the decimal system carried them right through to the
end. Cumulatively that amounted to a lot of money.
This may have been one of the secrets of the Templars, but I don't
really think it was that simple.
>
>Say no more.
>
Eric Stevens
Philip Deitiker
news:f4e4v119rinnfsn9l...@4ax.com by Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> . . . :
> I don't agree with you there, at least about what might have
> happened after 1307. The formally recognised organisation had
> existed for much more than a century, complete with it's formal
> rules and regulations, internal hierarchy and traditions.
Your belief is immaterial, the order was destroyed and no official in
the church will side and say it was not destroyed. It ceased to
exist. Could there have been a rogue organization that secretly
patterned itself after the templar, borrowed templar traditions, etc.
Sure, no prove as such exists, but if it did exist it would not be
Templar or ex-Templar, it would be psuedoTemplar.
Simply because it existed for hundreds of years is immaterial. We
can say the same thing about Czarist russia, czarist russia existed
for 100s of years. One day it came to an abrupt and violent end. We
could say the same thing about Moorish spain, it existed for 100s of
years, one day moorish rule in spain came to a end. We can say the
same thing about the Aztec empire, aztec, toeltec and mayan
civilizations had lasted for 1000s of years, one day the spanish came
and mesoamerican civilization came to an end. Lots of things that
lasted a long time come to abrupt end, nature is full of examples.
Simply because you like an organization or its behavior is no
guarantee that organization will survive. History is not Religion,
there are no precondition of men in white hats to come a rescued
beloved organizations from their demise.
In the 15th century Sephardic Jews who had lived in spain for 100s
if not 1000s of years were forced to recant judaism and join
christian beliefs and as that was enough there were inquisitions.
Many fled their homes with nothing more than the clothes on their
backs and keys to their house doors. They have never been allowed to
return, some still have the keys. These are the kinds of things the
HRC and it various 'bad guy' kings did during the late medieval
period. That is why there was a reformation. You and Inger need to
learn to live with history, that is what it is there for, to educate
the ignorant masses what types of events can happen if society is not
on guard against extremism and corruption. Are you ignorant or
educated?
Tron
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i melding
news:nj35v1phd4hlfstrp...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 01:59:32 +0100, "Tron" <tron...@frizurf.no>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i melding
>>news:pon4v196oeqtta9j9...@4ax.com...
>>
>>Apropos banking and banking technology ....
>>
>>..... their knowledge, whatever it may have been. There are hints
>>> that it was deeply mathematical but quite how they used it (apart from
>>> possibly building cathedrals) is a mystery.
>>
>>Could it have been arcana of book-keeping?
>
> Well that was certainly developing at about that time with the
> introduction of Arab numerals and decimals, and they could have played
> a part in it cooperation with Fibonacci - see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci
Yes, I know about him,, and e.g. his Liber Abaci. He was educated in
Algerie, where his father traded with muslim merhcants. The plot thickens
....
>
...
>
> A bit after the time of the Templars though.
NOT if they continued underground, remember?
And Columbus had just discovered America in an official way, so maybe they
didn't need to guard all their secrets (like Oak Island) anymore ...
>
> Way back in the early days of computers
I count the early days of computers from Lullus' (died 1316) "Ars..." books;
the first calculus ratiocinator.
...
> This may have been one of the secrets of the Templars, but I don't
> really think it was that simple.
I'll agree to not say "but it fits, therefore ... " etc. in exchange for
some pooints on why you don't think it was that simple.
>>Say no more.
Guess I did ....
T
Tron
sorry to piggyback, your opposite does not appear in my reader.
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i melding
news:sdv4v193cok9oasbm...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:50:09 -0800, Tom McDonald
> <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
..
> It seems that no matter what I do, I'm wrong. :-)
I don't want to be the cause for bad blood here.
>
> I'm often accused of speculation in one form or another and it is true
> that I do so speculate. But it's speculation to an end and I do it
> when we have only part of the answer and I speculate about what it
> might be that fills the gap.
>
> What Tron seems to be doing is creating a speculation and then looking
> for somewhere that it may fit.
Partly right. I did speculate (even admittedly so) by doing a rhetorical
quis quid ubi type catalogue of possible topoi, as an aide memoire when
looking at known facts. I just didn't look at any facts.
When this technique is applied to an
> area where very little is known the danger is that we will end up with
> a structure of glorious speculation almost entirely lacking in anchor
> points to what is known.
I hope I didn't imply any of my stuff should do in stead of answers.
Now if Tron could identify a few anchor
> points for his ideas then he might begin to find that he has got
> something.
Indeed. I'll leave that to historians, though.
T
Tom McDonald
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:50:09 -0800, Tom McDonald
> <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>I don't think there is any point to free-wheeling speculation of this
>>>kind. Speculation only becomes useful when no other known solution to
>>>a problem exists, i.e. 'Here is a gap. I wonder what might go in it?'
>>
>> Funnily enough, I thought Tron's observations were fresh and
>>interesting. There is no point to putting down free-wheeling
>>speculation when the final truth is still in doubt. I'm
>>surprised, yet again, at your position on this.
>
>
> It seems that no matter what I do, I'm wrong. :-)
No. You're just on a bad streak.
> I'm often accused of speculation in one form or another and it is true
> that I do so speculate. But it's speculation to an end and I do it
> when we have only part of the answer and I speculate about what it
> might be that fills the gap.
>
> What Tron seems to be doing is creating a speculation and then looking
> for somewhere that it may fit. When this technique is applied to an
> area where very little is known the danger is that we will end up with
> a structure of glorious speculation almost entirely lacking in anchor
> points to what is known. Now if Tron could identify a few anchor
> points for his ideas then he might begin to find that he has got
> something.
In fact, there is a place for Tron's sort of speculation; and it
is precisely where 'very little is known.' It's the
brain-storming session that may turn up some useful new angles,
which might indeed tease out a string-end to pull usefully.
I appear to have lost the battle for the soul of
sci.archaeology. If we are to be a place for whateverthehell, why
not do some blue-skying? At this point, that seems the only
possible way this will ever turn back to archaeology.
Tom McDonald
> Hi,
>
> sorry to piggyback, your opposite does not appear in my reader.
>
> "Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i melding
> news:sdv4v193cok9oasbm...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:50:09 -0800, Tom McDonald
>><tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>
> ..
>
>>It seems that no matter what I do, I'm wrong. :-)
>
>
> I don't want to be the cause for bad blood here.
You aren't. It's a long story.
And if by 'here' you mean sci.archaeology, it's only that I
would like to see a little archaeology. This thread has,
precisely, to several significant figures, none.
<snip>
Eric Stevens
<tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
Yep, but as I know well, you musn't fall into the trap of causing
others to think you believe it.
>
> I appear to have lost the battle for the soul of
>sci.archaeology. If we are to be a place for whateverthehell, why
>not do some blue-skying? At this point, that seems the only
>possible way this will ever turn back to archaeology.
You might not have noticed that now this is being posted in both
sci.archaeology and soc.history.medieval. I did that in the hope that
something more substntial would emerge which might relate to the
interpretation of the archaeological artifacts in both Minnesota and
Gotland. So far it hasn't. That's one reason I didn't want the thread
to turn into a cloud of nebulous speculation.
Eric Stevens
Uwe Müller
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:f4e4v119rinnfsn9l...@4ax.com...
You have to decide what you are arguing for, a continuation of an
organisation or the continuing existence of some/most of its members. I did
and do no doubt the latter, but the order as such was destroyed, it could
hold no properties, give no services to others, be they religious, military
or economically. Mixing up the order with some of it's members will not let
you see either of them clearly.
In the beginning of the 14th. c. private and/or religious societies for
mutual care and assistance were founded, one of the earliest being the
Circle Company in Luebeck. Its rooms were identified in Luebeck, in a
building that was subsequently destroyed for a shopping mall (will that help
towards re-establishing some archaeological content?)
You could argue for some sort of connection between these private
communities and the left over former templars, but I doubt that there was
any continuity in the means and aims of these societies with those of the
Templars.
>
> I'm not using this argument to support any particular outcome. All I
> am saying it would not surprise me to find that parts of the original
> Templar organisation survived with members continuing to think and
> behave as Templars. We know in fact that this is more or less what
> happened in Portugal with Royal sanction, even though they no longer
> called themselves Templars.
That's somewhat like the question, if the fact, that the fur of a wolf was
preserved, gives reason to specualte, if the wolf had survived.
>
> I am not claiming that groups of Templars DID continue as such after
> the formal destruction of the order in 1307. However, I do say that it
> would not be surprising if one or more groups of Templars survived
> after 1307 and the mere fact that we presently have no direct evidence
> of this should not be taken as meaning that such a continuation
> definitely did not happen.
You are in fact arguing that the order of the Templars as such survived,
only somewhat reduced in size. The order was much more than just a group of
interacting people. Even though the people, or some of them at least, have
survived, it does not mean, that the order of the Templars did.
>
> The trappings of history have many frayed edges and should not be
> regarded as though it is a precisely tailored garment. We don't know
> how many pockets it had originally, let alone what was in them. Some
> speculation about their possible contents is permitted.
I do not mind speculation, quite the contrary. But when we speculate, we
have to be clear what the speculations are about. As I see it, any way you
might define the Templars, they came to an end in the early 14th c. as far
as the 14th c. reality was concerned.
It's former members, so they survived, would of course have to look for a
way to make a living, once all the assets of the former order were spoken
for. Many experts would find employment with other orders or potentates,
would use contacts and experiences from their former Templar associations.
If any association including former-templars emerged , it was so different
from the former order, that we should respect the names they gave
themselves, and look for possible common traits or differences between them
and the former Templars. And there are many striking differences, that they
were organized on a local or at the most regional level, that military
action was no longer a common bond, that economic activities where very
limited, that they were included in/subject to the local religious
hierarchies, and not excluded from them, as the Templars were.
If you want to argue for some of the military orders to be in fact
successors of the Templars, do so. Their charters are well known as are
their activities, it should be no major problem to show common traits, if
there were any.
Considering my experiences with humanity, I would even feel safe to bet,
that a few former Templars tried to reestablish the order, under whatever
name. But that came to nothing, as the 14th c. was very different from the
time they rose to prominence.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Eric Stevens
<uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
I'm arguing for the *possible* continuation of the spirit of the
organisation embodied in a new organisation.
>I did
>and do no doubt the latter, but the order as such was destroyed, it could
>hold no properties, give no services to others, be they religious, military
>or economically. Mixing up the order with some of it's members will not let
>you see either of them clearly.
>
>In the beginning of the 14th. c. private and/or religious societies for
>mutual care and assistance were founded, one of the earliest being the
>Circle Company in Luebeck. Its rooms were identified in Luebeck, in a
>building that was subsequently destroyed for a shopping mall (will that help
>towards re-establishing some archaeological content?)
>
>You could argue for some sort of connection between these private
>communities and the left over former templars, but I doubt that there was
>any continuity in the means and aims of these societies with those of the
>Templars.
I agree there is doubt. There is no certainty either way.
>
>>
>> I'm not using this argument to support any particular outcome. All I
>> am saying it would not surprise me to find that parts of the original
>> Templar organisation survived with members continuing to think and
>> behave as Templars. We know in fact that this is more or less what
>> happened in Portugal with Royal sanction, even though they no longer
>> called themselves Templars.
>
>That's somewhat like the question, if the fact, that the fur of a wolf was
>preserved, gives reason to specualte, if the wolf had survived.
The skinned corpus? I very much doubt it. The rest of the wolf could
not survive once the skin was gone but there is a possibility of an
organisatoin surviving even if the formal recognition is removed.
>
>>
>> I am not claiming that groups of Templars DID continue as such after
>> the formal destruction of the order in 1307. However, I do say that it
>> would not be surprising if one or more groups of Templars survived
>> after 1307 and the mere fact that we presently have no direct evidence
>> of this should not be taken as meaning that such a continuation
>> definitely did not happen.
>
>You are in fact arguing that the order of the Templars as such survived,
>only somewhat reduced in size. The order was much more than just a group of
>interacting people. Even though the people, or some of them at least, have
>survived, it does not mean, that the order of the Templars did.
No, I've never tried to argue that the order of the Templars survived.
What I'm suggesting is that individual Templars who survived may have
formed organisations which preserved the original spirit of the
Templars and the relationship between the members.
>
>>
>> The trappings of history have many frayed edges and should not be
>> regarded as though it is a precisely tailored garment. We don't know
>> how many pockets it had originally, let alone what was in them. Some
>> speculation about their possible contents is permitted.
>
>I do not mind speculation, quite the contrary. But when we speculate, we
>have to be clear what the speculations are about. As I see it, any way you
>might define the Templars, they came to an end in the early 14th c. as far
>as the 14th c. reality was concerned.
>
>It's former members, so they survived, would of course have to look for a
>way to make a living, once all the assets of the former order were spoken
>for. Many experts would find employment with other orders or potentates,
>would use contacts and experiences from their former Templar associations.
>
>If any association including former-templars emerged , it was so different
>from the former order, that we should respect the names they gave
>themselves, and look for possible common traits or differences between them
>and the former Templars. And there are many striking differences, that they
>were organized on a local or at the most regional level, that military
>action was no longer a common bond, that economic activities where very
>limited, that they were included in/subject to the local religious
>hierarchies, and not excluded from them, as the Templars were.
>
>If you want to argue for some of the military orders to be in fact
>successors of the Templars, do so. Their charters are well known as are
>their activities, it should be no major problem to show common traits, if
>there were any.
It's not that easy as a number of organisations - e.g. the Teutonic
Knights - were formed at much the same time with much the same rules
for much the same reasons. Such organisations could have absorbed
surviving templars with hardly a ripple,
>
>Considering my experiences with humanity, I would even feel safe to bet,
>that a few former Templars tried to reestablish the order, under whatever
>name. But that came to nothing, as the 14th c. was very different from the
>time they rose to prominence.
Here you and I are in agreement. The only question is how long it took
them to come to nothing.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
> "Uwe Müller" wrote:
>> You have to decide what you are arguing for, a continuation of an
>> organisation or the continuing existence of some/most of its members.
> I'm arguing for the *possible* continuation of the spirit of the
> organisation embodied in a new organisation.
And that spirit put a cross on a Gotland grave stone?
[...]
--
p.a.
IE J
Tron,
I wish I knew all about it instead of just a little.
But had more than they had all the answers, it wouldnt' be a secret. I know
this much. During WWII some very secret parchments kept in a case were
brought from it's hidding place to Italy and Templars. I know that the
Vatican as well as the Nazis tried to get hold of it.
Could have been interesting knowing more. Don't you agree.
Inger E
>
>
IE J
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
news:43f2f354$0$893$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
Peter,
how much to you know about Gotland's Religious and other History of the
time? The Danish influence there and in the Baltic? Which Royal member is
linked to the Order as well as the Baltic, Gotland and.... Linköping?
I said it before - in these cases there are so much more anyone speaking for
or against need to know than only the easy known parts. It involves members
of Royal Families. I thought you all knew that the Grand Master and many
other 'grades' needed to belong to special families or having special
ancestors.
Inger E
>
> [...]
>
> --
> p.a.
>
>
Tom McDonald
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:45:08 -0800, Tom McDonald
> <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Eric Stevens wrote:
<snip>
>>>I'm often accused of speculation in one form or another and it is true
>>>that I do so speculate. But it's speculation to an end and I do it
>>>when we have only part of the answer and I speculate about what it
>>>might be that fills the gap.
>>>
>>>What Tron seems to be doing is creating a speculation and then looking
>>>for somewhere that it may fit. When this technique is applied to an
>>>area where very little is known the danger is that we will end up with
>>>a structure of glorious speculation almost entirely lacking in anchor
>>>points to what is known. Now if Tron could identify a few anchor
>>>points for his ideas then he might begin to find that he has got
>>>something.
>>
>> In fact, there is a place for Tron's sort of speculation; and it
>>is precisely where 'very little is known.' It's the
>>brain-storming session that may turn up some useful new angles,
>>which might indeed tease out a string-end to pull usefully.
>
>
> Yep, but as I know well, you musn't fall into the trap of causing
> others to think you believe it.
Yeppers. I think one victim of the heat sometimes generated on
sa is nuance. When we get posters who actually believe, or give
all appearances of believing, total crap, and who defend their
beliefs without adequate justification, we can and do get into a
'shoot first and ask questions later' behavior.
At least, that's my take. And that's part of the reason I'd
really like to focus on the archaeology, bringing in other issues
only when there was some reasonably proximal archaeological point
to which they were useful.
Archies like to blue-sky as much as anyone. But they also tend
to be pretty hard-headed, and impatient with arcana in other
disciplines that has little or no obvious connection with an
archaeological issue of interest to them. And IMHO, there is
little that is more arcane than speculations about Templars.
>> I appear to have lost the battle for the soul of
>>sci.archaeology. If we are to be a place for whateverthehell, why
>>not do some blue-skying? At this point, that seems the only
>>possible way this will ever turn back to archaeology.
>
>
> You might not have noticed that now this is being posted in both
> sci.archaeology and soc.history.medieval. I did that in the hope that
> something more substntial would emerge which might relate to the
> interpretation of the archaeological artifacts in both Minnesota and
> Gotland. So far it hasn't.
I appreciate the effort. I'd have appreciated leaving s.a. out
of it until there was something more substantial; but I
appreciate the effort all the same.
> That's one reason I didn't want the thread
> to turn into a cloud of nebulous speculation.
While to me, that is its only saving grace, with its possibility
of breaking the log-jam. Different strokes.
am...@hotmail.com
Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >The story about Papal secret absolution (even if true) is irrelevant
> >because
> >it did not cancel an official disbandment of the order.
> >
>
> The so-called 'disbandment' of the order did no more than take away
> official recognition.
Without this recognition, Templars could not continue to exist as a
Catholic
religious order.
>The organisation, as such, came into existence
> before official recognition by the pope.
Order's chapter was created as a part of 'recognition' process.
>There is no reason why the
> parts of it that were not destroyed could not continue without formal
> papal recognitoin.
They could not 'continue' as a _Catholic_ religious order because they
had been
officially disbanded by the Pope.
If you are saying that some former members could get together and
launch some
banking operation under some different name, yes they probably could.
If you are saying that some former members could establish themselves
in some
castle and pretend that nothing happened (use Templars' banner,
clothes, etc.) no,
they could not.
To start with, you have to define what 'continue' means. The main
official purpose of
the Templars' existence was fight against the Muslims. BTW, one of the
reasons of
their downfall was their unwillingness to continue this fight after
Outremer was lost:
the Hospitalliers settled on Rhodos and kept at least small-scale
fighting but the
Templars refused to do such a thing and kept inissting on a new crusade
as the only
scenario. With crusading idea being not very popular at this time, the
purpose of
Templars' existence was lost because there was nothing to 'continue'
and time and
form of their disbandment were just a matter of time and specific
situation. The
Teutonic Order eventually faced the similar dillema (no pagans anywhere
close) but
by this time there was an option of secularization. Again, unlike the
Templars, the
Teutonic Order had its own state. Spanish military orders were '
national' to start with
and did not try to play independence. Eventually, membership became
just a form
of a state award.
Of course, if you assume that the Templars had some hidden goal
(preserving
the Grail, discovering America, getting in touch with their inner
selves, getting a
second job as the construction workers, sending secret mission to Mars,
etc.)
then yes, sure, they could continue doing all these exciting things.
am...@hotmail.com
Acting as the pimps to McWasherwomen. As you understand, this is
something
better to be kept secret. :-)
prd
> fact successors of the Templars, do so. Their charters are well
> known as are their activities, it should be no major problem to
> show common traits, if there were any.
>
> Considering my experiences with humanity, I would even feel safe
> to bet, that a few former Templars tried to reestablish the
> order, under whatever name. But that came to nothing, as the
> 14th c. was very different from the time they rose to
> prominence.
I think they might have had some sticking power on the fringe of the
HRE but logical let us argue that of the 100s of known Templar, many
died or were burned, many were forced to repent, many went back to
their old occupation, I think it was unlikely if more than say 30 in
one place retained common occupation outside of the larger RC
occupations.
Without the churches sanction a large aspect of the 'spirit' is
lost unless you can find another religious organization which they
can be 'that' aspect in. It seems that ultimately the ex-Templar
faded into population.
One of the things I was reading that might parallel this concerns
to Zoroastrians. Apparently these wise men could have been teachers
of kings, even some of the 'western' kings had teachers who were
Zoroastrian. The links of Zoroastrianism to western philosophy and
religion have been virtually erased by the HRC, but in the early days
of christianity the gnostics (who engaged the ZA) were not a sub-par
level in the church, the suppression begins in ernest >100 years
later, and various books disappear. One thing that played into this
was that the ZA were big in the Parsian world and there was a long
battle between the persians and romans for middle east. Being a ZA
educated king may be a good thing as long as know one knew it or you
didn't announce it to the world (as the gnostic camp suggest about
JC). History is not perfect, there is a certain corruption that goes
on to give the appearance of strength or unity.
My impression is that before the lutherian split, the HRC was and
still is plaqued by underorganizations, unofficial cliches in the
church and beliefs that divide people along ethnic and social lines.
The HRC itself is a split from the the eastern church, refusing the
iconclasts in the destruction of idolatry in the church. In such a
situation secret organizations far enough out of the papal view could
persist, such as scotland. England was, for instance, one of the
first churches to fall away from the HRC and at least 100 years of
'pressure' preceded this in England. No specific suggestion that
there was a templar involvement. One of the issues for many Templar
is that contact with the east brought back technologies and brought
europe out of the dark ages. They also had contact with eastern
thought and beliefs, uncluding sufist and possibly zoroastrians,
amoung them gnostics may have held private asperations to learn more.
When they returned they may have searched and found or aspired these
seperatist and quasireligious organization in unofficial capacities.
Examples could be the early scottish masons. IOW the members of the
templar who did learn more about eastern culture could have
reorganized into very small independent secret societies that allied
them with the closest public examples. The reality however is a
factor, because other than hints there is no claim by any
organization that kept records that they were directly connected to
the templars. In scotland however it gets murky.
am...@hotmail.com
> >>
> ...
>
> While speculating ... isn't the the interest re the continued/continuing
> existence of the Templars based on the premise that they had access to some
> special kind of knowledge - something to "trahere"?
>
> Candidates would be:
> - military science (but that would not be a Templar exclusive)
> - banking
Not their exclusive as well...
> - science, or at least scholarship (e.g. medicine, architecture ...)
> - some deep fantastic secret like the Sang Real;
You mean assuring that the Holy Bloodline will be maintained by being
in ...er...
close contact with the female descendcents of Jesus? :-)
>anything hinted at by their
> supposed heresies; some power as demonstrated in the tale of de Molay's
> curse .... etc.
>
It is a big question if it did really work. The Capetings ceased to
exist within
the next generation (Phillip's sons), not the 10th one. One may, of
course, argue
that practically ALL following French kings were disastrous for the
country but,
OTOH, were their predecessors considerably better? :-)
>
> I made that list above as a basis for further speculaton on what this
> continuation would consist in, what would be the substance of it.
> Templar generals? Any known?
Nope and, based on their record in Outremer, one would really benefit
from
the _enemy_ being led by such a general. Most of their known exploits
boil
down to a simple formula: "attack no matter what and keep fighting
until all
of you are killed".
One can reasonably assume that there was a secret pool of the Templar
generals
for hire and that the more thoughtful European rulers managed to sneak
them
into positions of a military responsibility at the enemy's court. The
proceeds allowed
the Order to maintain its secret existence. That and pimping to the
McWasherwomen.
> Famous Templar doctors? Or even continuing hospitals?
Not their business.
[]
> And if de Molay had all these powers, he probably wouldn't have been quite
> the sitting duck.
Yep, why would not he curse Phillip and his henchmen as soon as he was
arrested? Having all them dead would have a nice deterring effect on
the proceedings.
Uwe Müller
Than I must have misunderstood you writing "There is no reason why the
parts of it that were not destroyed could not continue without formal papal
recognitoin."
That sounded to me, as if you had ment the organisation was reduced in size,
but not shut down.
There were certainly lots of pubs at that time with a group of oldtimers
mumbling about
"getting the boys together again to show them".
>
> >I did
> >and do no doubt the latter, but the order as such was destroyed, it could
> >hold no properties, give no services to others, be they religious,
military
> >or economically. Mixing up the order with some of it's members will not
let
> >you see either of them clearly.
> >
> >In the beginning of the 14th. c. private and/or religious societies for
> >mutual care and assistance were founded, one of the earliest being the
> >Circle Company in Luebeck. Its rooms were identified in Luebeck, in a
> >building that was subsequently destroyed for a shopping mall (will that
help
> >towards re-establishing some archaeological content?)
> >
> >You could argue for some sort of connection between these private
> >communities and the left over former templars, but I doubt that there was
> >any continuity in the means and aims of these societies with those of the
> >Templars.
>
> I agree there is doubt. There is no certainty either way.
There is no certainty anywhere. Specualation is a good thing, when it can be
negated, specualation is boring when it boils down to 'There is no
certainty'.
> >
> >>
> >> I'm not using this argument to support any particular outcome. All I
> >> am saying it would not surprise me to find that parts of the original
> >> Templar organisation survived with members continuing to think and
> >> behave as Templars. We know in fact that this is more or less what
> >> happened in Portugal with Royal sanction, even though they no longer
> >> called themselves Templars.
> >
> >That's somewhat like the question, if the fact, that the fur of a wolf
was
> >preserved, gives reason to specualte, if the wolf had survived.
>
> The skinned corpus? I very much doubt it. The rest of the wolf could
> not survive once the skin was gone but there is a possibility of an
> organisatoin surviving even if the formal recognition is removed.
A lot more was removed than only the formal papal recognition. So it was not
the skinned corpus of the wolf that was preserved, but, as I wrote, only the
fur.
> >
> >>
> >> I am not claiming that groups of Templars DID continue as such after
> >> the formal destruction of the order in 1307. However, I do say that it
> >> would not be surprising if one or more groups of Templars survived
> >> after 1307 and the mere fact that we presently have no direct evidence
> >> of this should not be taken as meaning that such a continuation
> >> definitely did not happen.
> >
> >You are in fact arguing that the order of the Templars as such survived,
> >only somewhat reduced in size. The order was much more than just a group
of
> >interacting people. Even though the people, or some of them at least,
have
> >survived, it does not mean, that the order of the Templars did.
>
> No, I've never tried to argue that the order of the Templars survived.
> What I'm suggesting is that individual Templars who survived may have
> formed organisations which preserved the original spirit of the
> Templars and the relationship between the members.
They lacked the 'basic' commodities of the former order of the temple:
freedom from local and regional justice, the right to own property as a
group, freedom from local and regional church organisations, freedom from
taxation, tolls and dues, military power.
There was no right to form organisations, societies, guilds, brotherhoods,
whatever, quite the contrary. Local and regional magnates would look to
control any such organisation or use the law against them. And they would
always listen to a rumour of a power establishing itself in their territory.
If your definition of The Templars is resting on some indefineable 'original
spirit', that was not preserved while the order was still in power (hence
the word original?), how could this spirit survive when all means to nourish
it and let it grow, were taken from them? How should a lonesome ex-Templar
let's say in York or Kopenhagen reach Jerusalem, install a hospital and aid
pilgrims? Even if there were 50 of them, they had no funds, no
communication, no transport.
They were fighting different opponents in a well specified area. If there
were job openings the common soldier could be hired. If he was speaking
german, if he knew how to fight in swamps and woods, if he had members, that
would vouch for him, why not.
Biut what about the brain of the templars? Do you believe the leadership of
the TK would accomodate and pay for a sort of secret, second leadership
consisting of ex-Templars, would keep those out of the books, and hush up
local talk about foreigners?
I fear, that would be first bureaucracy/leadership to ever do a thing like
that.
> >
> >Considering my experiences with humanity, I would even feel safe to bet,
> >that a few former Templars tried to reestablish the order, under whatever
> >name. But that came to nothing, as the 14th c. was very different from
the
> >time they rose to prominence.
>
> Here you and I are in agreement. The only question is how long it took
> them to come to nothing.
5 to 10 years at the most for any direct influence, a generation (=ca. 30
years) before they were forgotten by most of those, Templars had had no
direct contact with,
3 generations for the Templars to have become a myth.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
IE J
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@go4more.de> skrev i meddelandet
news:dsvl4q$se1$1...@online.de...
???? funds existed in Poland. Didn't you know? It existed elsewhere as well.
If you read the thread I sent re. Bianca of Namur and look a bit closer to
her ancestors, sibblings etc you will find that the Templars still existed
and some of them reached Jerusalem in Bianca's days.
Inger E
Eric Stevens
<tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
In the case at the heart of all this the dotted 'R' runes to be found
on both the Kensington Runestone and Gotland are the proximal
points.So too are tha apparent Templar connections (out of time as
they may be) with the dotted 'R' runes in Gotland. The question is, is
there a common factor connecting all these?
>
> Archies like to blue-sky as much as anyone. But they also tend
>to be pretty hard-headed, and impatient with arcana in other
>disciplines that has little or no obvious connection with an
>archaeological issue of interest to them. And IMHO, there is
>little that is more arcane than speculations about Templars.
>
>>> I appear to have lost the battle for the soul of
>>>sci.archaeology. If we are to be a place for whateverthehell, why
>>>not do some blue-skying? At this point, that seems the only
>>>possible way this will ever turn back to archaeology.
>>
>>
>> You might not have noticed that now this is being posted in both
>> sci.archaeology and soc.history.medieval. I did that in the hope that
>> something more substntial would emerge which might relate to the
>> interpretation of the archaeological artifacts in both Minnesota and
>> Gotland. So far it hasn't.
>
> I appreciate the effort. I'd have appreciated leaving s.a. out
>of it until there was something more substantial; but I
>appreciate the effort all the same.
>
>> That's one reason I didn't want the thread
>> to turn into a cloud of nebulous speculation.
>
> While to me, that is its only saving grace, with its possibility
>of breaking the log-jam. Different strokes.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Plural. Crosses on Gotland gravestones.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
Eric Stevens
<uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
Rather like a star fish where severed limbs continue to live and grow.
>
>There were certainly lots of pubs at that time with a group of oldtimers
>mumbling about
>"getting the boys together again to show them".
I didn't know you were that old. :-)
But they would have retained whatever was the inner secret that the
French used torture to try and identify.
>
>There was no right to form organisations, societies, guilds, brotherhoods,
>whatever, quite the contrary. Local and regional magnates would look to
>control any such organisation or use the law against them. And they would
>always listen to a rumour of a power establishing itself in their territory.
>
>If your definition of The Templars is resting on some indefineable 'original
>spirit', that was not preserved while the order was still in power (hence
>the word original?), how could this spirit survive when all means to nourish
>it and let it grow, were taken from them? How should a lonesome ex-Templar
>let's say in York or Kopenhagen reach Jerusalem, install a hospital and aid
>pilgrims?
But that was not all they were doing, not by any means.
>Even if there were 50 of them, they had no funds, no
>communication, no transport.
A mystery surrounds the vanishing of the Templar treasure. Where did
it go? Who knows?
Why on earth do you think it has to work that way?
>
>I fear, that would be first bureaucracy/leadership to ever do a thing like
>that.
>
>> >
>> >Considering my experiences with humanity, I would even feel safe to bet,
>> >that a few former Templars tried to reestablish the order, under whatever
>> >name. But that came to nothing, as the 14th c. was very different from
>the
>> >time they rose to prominence.
>>
>> Here you and I are in agreement. The only question is how long it took
>> them to come to nothing.
>
>5 to 10 years at the most for any direct influence, a generation (=ca. 30
>years) before they were forgotten by most of those, Templars had had no
>direct contact with,
>3 generations for the Templars to have become a myth.
>
>
>have fun
>
>Uwe Mueller
>
>
>
Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:v307v1llu5ugtoin0...@4ax.com...
I'll apologize in advance for what appears below. I haven't been able to
make any progress reading the book and taking notes because I've had some
setbacks since my surgery with pain management and intermittent numbness.
Today has been a better day. So I'll post this much:
The real issue is whether the runes appearing on the KRS that are alleged to
be dotted R's are all really dotted R's. Are some of them overstrikes of
misplaced word separators? How many are just chips in the stone? How is it
that Ohman's transcription of the KRS runes, appearing very early in the
book and done in a beautiful hand, omits to show essentially all of the
dotted R runes?
>>
>> Archies like to blue-sky as much as anyone. But they also tend
>>to be pretty hard-headed, and impatient with arcana in other
>>disciplines that has little or no obvious connection with an
>>archaeological issue of interest to them. And IMHO, there is
>>little that is more arcane than speculations about Templars.
>>
>>>> I appear to have lost the battle for the soul of
>>>>sci.archaeology. If we are to be a place for whateverthehell, why
>>>>not do some blue-skying? At this point, that seems the only
>>>>possible way this will ever turn back to archaeology.
>>>
>>>
>>> You might not have noticed that now this is being posted in both
>>> sci.archaeology and soc.history.medieval. I did that in the hope that
>>> something more substntial would emerge which might relate to the
>>> interpretation of the archaeological artifacts in both Minnesota and
>>> Gotland. So far it hasn't.
>>
>> I appreciate the effort. I'd have appreciated leaving s.a. out
>>of it until there was something more substantial; but I
>>appreciate the effort all the same.
>>
>>> That's one reason I didn't want the thread
>>> to turn into a cloud of nebulous speculation.
>>
>> While to me, that is its only saving grace, with its possibility
>>of breaking the log-jam. Different strokes.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
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. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: news:kc07v11p74sbn4t6j...@4ax.com
>
>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:24:32 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Stevens wrote: news:c2r5v11e841s1b5kl...@4ax.com
>>>> "Uwe Müller" wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You have to decide what you are arguing for, a continuation of an
>>>>> organisation or the continuing existence of some/most of its
>>>>> members.
>>>
>>>> I'm arguing for the *possible* continuation of the spirit of the
>>>> organisation embodied in a new organisation.
>>>
>>> And that spirit put a cross on a Gotland grave stone?
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Plural. Crosses on Gotland gravestones.
>
>Usual tactic.
>
I was pointing out that there was more than one.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>I'll apologize in advance for what appears below. I haven't been able to
>make any progress reading the book and taking notes because I've had some
>setbacks since my surgery with pain management and intermittent numbness.
>Today has been a better day. So I'll post this much:
>
>The real issue is whether the runes appearing on the KRS that are alleged to
>be dotted R's are all really dotted R's. Are some of them overstrikes of
>misplaced word separators? How many are just chips in the stone? How is it
>that Ohman's transcription of the KRS runes, appearing very early in the
>book and done in a beautiful hand, omits to show essentially all of the
>dotted R runes?
I'm genuinely sorry your recovery is causing you so much pain and
genuinely glad you have the opportunity to read the book more closely
than I have been able to do. Your point is a good one.
Here is what Scott Wolter wrote to me on the subject of your query:
"Steve's observations about Ohman's copy is interesting. He's
noticed that Ohman (and Siverts) missed the dots over several
runes. and all the dots both within and adjacent to the lines. The
simple reason is because he didn't know they were there and didn't
see them. Obviously, if he was a forger he would have known about
all these dots. You can assure Steve that the punches are NOT
defects or flaking of the rock. Althought the carver did have
difficulty on line one in the spalled second R in "NorRmen" (see
top left photo on page 29), and where he lost three runes at the
beginning of line two. It is likely that the carver was used to
carving in the relatively soft limestone and sandstone slabs on
Gotland. The difficulties are explained by his lack of experience
with the much harder and more brittle KRS metagraywacke. When the
carver came to the second palatal R on line five in "NorR" he
decided to put the dot between the legs which, as we discovered in
the Gotlandic inscriptions, was perfectly fine to do (check out
another dotted R between the legs we found after the book was
published, in G 70, in the middle of line four, on page 551. It
belongs there in the word "vaR"). The third and last dotted R on
the KRS appears in the word "vaR" on line six. The carver
apparently decided to put the dot in the upper loop, only this time
he used less pressure and made a shallow punch (see top right photo
on page 29). This is why we didn't find it right away because it
wasn't very noticeable. It wasn't until Dick realized a punch
belonged in that R and asked me to check it again. To our
amazement, the dot was where it belonged!
Boy, that Ohman was pretty clever wasn't he?!! He sure did
"bothered the brains of the learned", including us!"
I find it particularly interesting that the hypothesis that Dick
Nielsen was working on enabled him to identify that there should be a
dot where Wolter had failed to note one. That Wolter could go back and
then find a dot goes some way to substantiating that Nielsen's
hypothesis is correct.
Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:44:50 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>I'll apologize in advance for what appears below. I haven't been able to
>>make any progress reading the book and taking notes because I've had some
>>setbacks since my surgery with pain management and intermittent numbness.
>>Today has been a better day. So I'll post this much:
>>
>>The real issue is whether the runes appearing on the KRS that are alleged
>>to
>>be dotted R's are all really dotted R's. Are some of them overstrikes of
>>misplaced word separators? How many are just chips in the stone? How is
>>it
>>that Ohman's transcription of the KRS runes, appearing very early in the
>>book and done in a beautiful hand, omits to show essentially all of the
>>dotted R runes?
>
> I'm genuinely sorry your recovery is causing you so much pain and
> genuinely glad you have the opportunity to read the book more closely
> than I have been able to do. Your point is a good one.
Thank you for the kind words. I'm not out of the woods yet :(. But perhaps
I'll get some good news this coming Friday when I visit the surgeon.
Precisely. Can this be a case of seeing what one wished to see?
Frankly, Wolter needs to realize that the issue is not, and never has been,
whether Ohman was involved with creating the KRS. The issue is, and always
has been, whether or not the KRS was actually created in 1362 by a party of
Norsemen in Minnesota. It need not have been created by, or with the
involvement of Ohman, to have been other than what it facially purports to
be.
On the topic of "missed dots", it would help if Wolter explained why he
believes that all of the dots must necessarily be intentional punches, and
why, for example, Ohman and Sieverts did not "know they were there and thus
didn't see them." Were these dots missed in Europe? Were they missed by
Holland?
I hope to be able to return to an analysis of the information contained in
the book, but it's not certain when I can do that. The pitfalls of being at
least than full strength are obvious, and on that note, you must apologize
to Wolter regarding some of the things I wrote about soil pH, since it is
clearly stated in the book that the soil pH in Kensington was neutral. It
disturbs me that I missed that.
At the same time, you might inquire whether that means that the soil pH was
also neutral circa 1850. Note that the land was used for farming for at
least 70 years or so ... and that Kensington is close enough to "southern"
Minnesota that it is entirely possible that the glacial till in the area is
naturally acidic. See:
http://www.agviselabs.com/tech_art/grdsolph.php
Peter Alaca
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:44:50 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> I'll apologize in advance for what appears below. I haven't been
>> able to make any progress reading the book and taking notes because
>> I've had some setbacks since my surgery with pain management and
>> intermittent numbness. Today has been a better day. So I'll post
>> this much:
>>
>> The real issue is whether the runes appearing on the KRS that are
>> alleged to be dotted R's are all really dotted R's. Are some of
>> them overstrikes of misplaced word separators? How many are just
>> chips in the stone? How is it that Ohman's transcription of the KRS
>> runes, appearing very early in the book and done in a beautiful
>> hand, omits to show essentially all of the dotted R runes?
>
> I'm genuinely sorry your recovery is causing you so much pain and
> genuinely glad you have the opportunity to read the book more closely
> than I have been able to do. Your point is a good one.
>
> Here is what Scott Wolter wrote to me on the subject of your query:
>
> "Steve's observations about Ohman's copy is interesting. He's
> noticed that Ohman (and Siverts) missed the dots over several
> runes. and all the dots both within and adjacent to the lines. The
> simple reason is because he didn't know they were there and didn't
> see them.
How can you say they are there if you can't see them?
Are there dots if you can't see them?
If there are dots why can't you see them?
> Obviously, if he was a forger he would have known about
> all these dots. You can assure Steve that the punches are NOT
> defects or flaking of the rock. Althought the carver did have
> difficulty on line one in the spalled second R in "NorRmen" (see
> top left photo on page 29), and where he lost three runes at the
> beginning of line two. It is likely that the carver was used to
> carving in the relatively soft limestone and sandstone slabs on
> Gotland.
Who says he was experienced at all?
> The difficulties are explained by his lack of experience
> with the much harder and more brittle KRS metagraywacke. When the
> carver came to the second palatal R on line five in "NorR" he
> decided to put the dot between the legs which, as we discovered in
> the Gotlandic inscriptions, was perfectly fine to do (check out
> another dotted R between the legs we found after the book was
> published, in G 70, in the middle of line four, on page 551. It
> belongs there in the word "vaR"). The third and last dotted R on
> the KRS appears in the word "vaR" on line six. The carver
> apparently decided to put the dot in the upper loop, only this time
> he used less pressure and made a shallow punch (see top right photo
> on page 29). This is why we didn't find it right away because it
> wasn't very noticeable. It wasn't until Dick realized a punch
> belonged in that R and asked me to check it again. To our
> amazement, the dot was where it belonged!
>
> Boy, that Ohman was pretty clever wasn't he?!! He sure did
> "bothered the brains of the learned", including us!"
>
> I find it particularly interesting that the hypothesis that Dick
> Nielsen was working on enabled him to identify that there should be a
> dot where Wolter had failed to note one.
Should be? Why?
> That Wolter could go back and
> then find a dot goes some way to substantiating that Nielsen's
> hypothesis is correct.
--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°
IE J
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
I am not sure if you are aware of showing ignorance of what can be seen on
any given carving directly on sight or on photos,
but I never seen anyone with such low knowledge and that is frustrating
because the basic knowledge in cases like this have been known for at least
100 years.
Any given carving, runes or Rock Carvings, can need to have lights falling
in from side not directly but as shown in rock carving cases when the best
time to see small marks as well as major non-visuable in broad daylight is
to wait until the sun sets and in many cases the carvings not been seen
until dark fall by using a torch(am. flashlight) trying to let the light
fall on the rock from side.
Of course it's possible to use a radar and then a GPS-map design program to
get a good 3D picture. But that's almost never enough.
That's the reason why many of the runestone's runes been discussed over and
over. It's simply not easy to 'read' many of the runestones all runes as one
would have wished by using photo-technique or visual sight.
Not only that. If you use an IR- technique there always is a problem with
having correct program to show still existing marks less than 0,5 mm due to
weathering. In many cases there still exists problems with larger carvings
as well.
Inger E
Peter Alaca
You mean "radar and then a GPS-map design"
(see below)
> Any given carving, runes or Rock Carvings, can need to have lights
> falling in from side not directly but as shown in rock carving cases
> when the best time to see small marks as well as major non-visuable
> in broad daylight is to wait until the sun sets and in many cases the
> carvings not been seen until dark fall by using a torch(am.
> flashlight) trying to let the light fall on the rock from side.
>
> Of course it's possible to use a radar and then a GPS-map design
> program to get a good 3D picture. But that's almost never enough.
Inger, Inger, Inger. Talking about ignorance!
> That's the reason why many of the runestone's runes been discussed
> over and over. It's simply not easy to 'read' many of the runestones
> all runes as one would have wished by using photo-technique or visual
> sight.
> Not only that. If you use an IR- technique there always is a problem
> with having correct program to show still existing marks less than
> 0,5 mm due to weathering. In many cases there still exists problems
> with larger carvings as well.
>
> Inger E
--
p.a.
IE J
I take it that you haven't worked yourself especially long periods with
radar and GPS design programs?
For your information - due to my own experience I got a certificat for free
by one of the major GPS program companies.
So Peter - I am not ignorant neither there nor when it comes to what it
takes to find what the original carver carved when he carved in stone!
I know what I am talking about. You don't.
Inger E
Peter Alaca
> Peter Alaca skrev
>> IE J wrote: news:KgZIf.45065$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net
>>> Of course it's possible to use a radar and then a GPS-map design
>>> program to get a good 3D picture. But that's almost never enough.
>> Inger, Inger, Inger. Talking about ignorance!
> Peter,
No you don't know what you are talking about,
unless you can decribe to me how to use GPS to
read runestones.
btw I am an experienced Digital Terrain Model
builder and user, so don't tell me you know better
because you was long ago a one season data typist
or perhaps not even that.
(Correct quoting and deleted lines restored)
Erik Hammerstad
>> Obviously, if he was a forger he would have known about
>> all these dots. You can assure Steve that the punches are NOT
>> defects or flaking of the rock. Althought the carver did have
>> difficulty on line one in the spalled second R in "NorRmen" (see
>> top left photo on page 29), and where he lost three runes at the
>> beginning of line two. It is likely that the carver was used to
>> carving in the relatively soft limestone and sandstone slabs on
>> Gotland.
>
>
> Who says he was experienced at all?
>
Stockholm judged him to be very inexperienced, i.e. a first :-)
Peter Alaca
But somehow he was experienced enough
to carve dots only visible with radar and GPS.
My patio is paved with tiles full of invisible dots.
They must be made by a master carver.
--
p.a.
Lisbeth Andersson
news:KgZIf.45065$d5.2...@newsb.telia.net:
> I am not sure if you are aware of showing ignorance of what can
> be seen on any given carving directly on sight or on photos,
> but I never seen anyone with such low knowledge and that is
> frustrating because the basic knowledge in cases like this have
> been known for at least 100 years.
>
> Any given carving, runes or Rock Carvings, can need to have
> lights falling in from side not directly but as shown in rock
> carving cases when the best time to see small marks as well as
> major non-visuable in broad daylight is to wait until the sun
> sets and in many cases the carvings not been seen until dark fall
> by using a torch(am. flashlight) trying to let the light fall on
> the rock from side.
>
If you are discussing the average runestone or rock carving, of
course you are right, although sometimes it is worse than that, and
details that cannot be seen no matter what lightning is used, can
be discovered using touch.
However the discussion is not about your average runestone, it is
about the KRS, where the carver really made an effort to cut deep
runes. We are not talking about fractions of milimeters, the depths
are closer to a centimeter. I find it weird that any carver - after
having made an effort to make the runes readable - should suddenly
decide to add almost invisible marks that can stay hidden for
years.
It's really too bad that you missed seeing the stone when it was in
the "neighbourhood".
> Of course it's possible to use a radar and then a GPS-map design
> program to get a good 3D picture. But that's almost never enough.
>
I'm really interested in this business of using radar to find text
on runestones. I worked with radar signals for a while a long time
ago, and back then radar was not really useful for picking up small
details. Radar wavelengths are/were usually 3 cm to 10 cm, which
meant that nobody would use it to see anything less than 1.5 cm. A
quick check showed some url:s where people tried to find smaller
objects, but that worked because they worked extremely close to the
examined objects and they were of different material than the
surrounding. Do you have any url:s or other references describing
how to use radar to discover stone on stone? I'm interested in what
frequencies are used, how much radiation does stone reflect, or
basically - how could anything like this possibly work?
> That's the reason why many of the runestone's runes been
> discussed over and over. It's simply not easy to 'read' many of
> the runestones all runes as one would have wished by using
> photo-technique or visual sight. Not only that. If you use an IR-
> technique there always is a problem with having correct program
> to show still existing marks less than 0,5 mm due to weathering.
> In many cases there still exists problems with larger carvings
> as well.
It's really surprising how long it took to discover the dogs on the
Mjölbo stone.
IR sounds better than radar, and if it anybody has found a way to
see small details on stone, using IR that works better than the
human eye using visible light I should like to know about it.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
IE J
"Lisbeth Andersson" <lis...@bredband.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns976CDB6F03C9C...@66.150.105.47...
Lisbet,
I am talking about the runestone not only as you saw it when it was in
Stockholm, but as it looks like on the two first photos taken of it as well
as later on.
Good photos. Excellent ones I had the pleasure of receiving from Copenhagen
as well as Ohio and Kensington long ago. Different angels and extremly good
dissolution = small details easier to recognise than usual. Especially when
one used the color-change programs.
But I never seen so good ones among the ones published here in Sweden nor in
books.
I could have told about two of the now discussed marks long ago had anyone
asked me. I found those as I then thought odd/obscure marks on the photos I
had via Hu.
But that's not the point. I had to use all my skill in analysing a photo and
color-'changing' programming. But they were there.
If you compare it with the old-futhark runestone on the opposite side of the
road from Tanum's church you will find that there are alike - deep runes and
marks that hardly can be seen. I don't compare the runes any other way.
If you compare the surface on KRS with the Liljestenar found under St: Lars
Church in Linköping, both found in almost identical type of 'soil' you will
find that the ageing is alike but then you will have to remember that the
Liljestenar was made almost 300 years earlier and we only know that they
must have been in the ground before the first woodchurch was built around
1100. Thus we know that the stone in Linköping hadn't been out so long
before it was in the ground - for KRS we don't know how long it was standing
up before it fell down at all.
> It's really too bad that you missed seeing the stone when it was in
> the "neighbourhood".
Yes it was. Tomas W and others saw it. Couldn't come up. It was as you might
remember same year as my last, not my present, knee cracked. I was back
working but had lost so much money due to the cracked right knee that I
couldn't afford not to work and I was engaged every single weekend. Thought
to go to Hälsingland but couldn't make it not even then.
>
>
> > Of course it's possible to use a radar and then a GPS-map design
> > program to get a good 3D picture. But that's almost never enough.
> >
>
> I'm really interested in this business of using radar to find text
> on runestones. I worked with radar signals for a while a long time
> ago, and back then radar was not really useful for picking up small
> details. Radar wavelengths are/were usually 3 cm to 10 cm, which
> meant that nobody would use it to see anything less than 1.5 cm. A
> quick check showed some url:s where people tried to find smaller
> objects, but that worked because they worked extremely close to the
> examined objects and they were of different material than the
> surrounding. Do you have any url:s or other references describing
> how to use radar to discover stone on stone? I'm interested in what
> frequencies are used, how much radiation does stone reflect, or
> basically - how could anything like this possibly work?
Lisbet,
I had my 'education' in analysing such photos way back before it was out on
the open market. So to speak. Three 'ways' of 'education' one I can't speak
of here, one when working for a company as a consult and one normal course
in photo-analysing. Including analysing 'photo'-image taken using IR on
girder in bridges where small microscopic differences are needed to be
found.....
I can ask around if there is some good program which is open for usage to be
discussed here. Otherwise I try to contact you directly.
>
>
> > That's the reason why many of the runestone's runes been
> > discussed over and over. It's simply not easy to 'read' many of
> > the runestones all runes as one would have wished by using
> > photo-technique or visual sight. Not only that. If you use an IR-
> > technique there always is a problem with having correct program
> > to show still existing marks less than 0,5 mm due to weathering.
> > In many cases there still exists problems with larger carvings
> > as well.
>
> It's really surprising how long it took to discover the dogs on the
> Mjölbo stone.
Yes it is. Isn't it. But then there was some article the other year dealing
with one of the stones around Nyköping where a new analyse of what was
carved gave a partly new interpretation. Do you remember? That's part of the
problem when carving is to be interpreted.
>
> IR sounds better than radar, and if it anybody has found a way to
> see small details on stone, using IR that works better than the
> human eye using visible light I should like to know about it.
I talk to AD as soon as I can. More later.
Inger E
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
Not according to Scott Wolter. Although they missed that punch mark
the first time (while others had missed many more) Scott is of the
opinion that all the identified punch marks have been deliberately
created with a tool and are not due to natural spalling.
>
>Frankly, Wolter needs to realize that the issue is not, and never has been,
>whether Ohman was involved with creating the KRS. The issue is, and always
>has been, whether or not the KRS was actually created in 1362 by a party of
>Norsemen in Minnesota. It need not have been created by, or with the
>involvement of Ohman, to have been other than what it facially purports to
>be.
>
>On the topic of "missed dots", it would help if Wolter explained why he
>believes that all of the dots must necessarily be intentional punches, and
>why, for example, Ohman and Sieverts did not "know they were there and thus
>didn't see them." Were these dots missed in Europe? Were they missed by
>Holland?
Quoting from a Wolter email again:
"I think the fact that the punches ALL fit beautifully into the
three categories of usage (dotted R's, dating code, and the
"Grail" prayer) is strong evidence that they are intentional.
This is bolstered by the fact that we identified them as
intentionally made before we made an interpretation. As I stated
in the book, the fine-grained nature of the KRS metagraywacke
allowed for a high level of detail by the carver (probably one of
the reasons he selected the rock in the first place). "
I believe that the reason Ohman/Siverts/Holand, and everyone else
prior to us, missed the dots and other anomalies, is simply
because they were not expected. I presume Holand and other
investigators assumed the KRS was like other rune stones which do
not incorporate punches (aside from word separators). The KRS is
a unique document, carved by a unique person from a unique place,
at a unique time. It's not like other rune stones and I think the
preconceived expectations of what investors expected to find,
along with what I believe to be early negative bias and therefore
lack of serious examination, led to the failure to observe
the anomalies. The dots/strokes are clearly visible in the early
photos. This is the only explanation I can think of."
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: news:nb08v11v799c4thrd...@4ax.com
The sentence might have been better worded to ward off criticism such
as yours.
"The simple reason is because he didn't know they were there and
didn't _notice_ them.'
The surface of the KRS is roughly textured and it is easy to fail to
notice unexpected small details in such a situation. Think
'camouflage'.
>
>
>> Obviously, if he was a forger he would have known about
>> all these dots. You can assure Steve that the punches are NOT
>> defects or flaking of the rock. Althought the carver did have
>> difficulty on line one in the spalled second R in "NorRmen" (see
>> top left photo on page 29), and where he lost three runes at the
>> beginning of line two. It is likely that the carver was used to
>> carving in the relatively soft limestone and sandstone slabs on
>> Gotland.
>
>Who says he was experienced at all?
Although I cannot presently find it, somewhere there is an account of
a study by Janey Westin, a professional stone carver from Minneapolis.
She is of the opinion that the the stone carver was not a full-time
professional but did have some prior experience.
>
>> The difficulties are explained by his lack of experience
>> with the much harder and more brittle KRS metagraywacke. When the
>> carver came to the second palatal R on line five in "NorR" he
>> decided to put the dot between the legs which, as we discovered in
>> the Gotlandic inscriptions, was perfectly fine to do (check out
>> another dotted R between the legs we found after the book was
>> published, in G 70, in the middle of line four, on page 551. It
>> belongs there in the word "vaR"). The third and last dotted R on
>> the KRS appears in the word "vaR" on line six. The carver
>> apparently decided to put the dot in the upper loop, only this time
>> he used less pressure and made a shallow punch (see top right photo
>> on page 29). This is why we didn't find it right away because it
>> wasn't very noticeable. It wasn't until Dick realized a punch
>> belonged in that R and asked me to check it again. To our
>> amazement, the dot was where it belonged!
>>
>> Boy, that Ohman was pretty clever wasn't he?!! He sure did
>> "bothered the brains of the learned", including us!"
>>
>> I find it particularly interesting that the hypothesis that Dick
>> Nielsen was working on enabled him to identify that there should be a
>> dot where Wolter had failed to note one.
>
>Should be? Why?
To fit in with the pattern of language and runes used on the rest of
the KRS.
>
>> That Wolter could go back and
>> then find a dot goes some way to substantiating that Nielsen's
>> hypothesis is correct.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
> Quoting from a Wolter email again:
>
> " [...]
> As I stated
> in the book, the fine-grained nature of the KRS metagraywacke
> allowed for a high level of detail by the carver (probably one of
> the reasons he selected the rock in the first place). [...]"
But you quoted earlier:
" It is likely that the carver was used to carving in
the relatively soft limestone and sandstone slabs
on Gotland. The difficulties are explained by his
lack of experience with the much harder and
more brittle KRS metagraywacke. "
Do you have an explanation for that contradiction?
--
p.a.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Erik Hammerstad wrote: news:45jpiiF...@individual.net
It is disappointing that you should use this nonsense to lead the
discussion into the swamps.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>> Erik Hammerstad wrote:
>>> Peter Alaca wrote:
>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> " Obviously, if he was a forger he would have known about
>>>>> all these dots. You can assure Steve that the punches are NOT
>>>>> defects or flaking of the rock. Althought the carver did have
>>>>> difficulty on line one in the spalled second R in "NorRmen" (see
>>>>> top left photo on page 29), and where he lost three runes at the
>>>>> beginning of line two. It is likely that the carver was used to
>>>>> carving in the relatively soft limestone and sandstone slabs on
>>>>> Gotland."
>>>> Who says he was experienced at all?
>>> AFAIR the professional rune carver who examined the KRS in
>>> Stockholm judged him to be very inexperienced, i.e. a first :-)
>> But somehow he was experienced enough
>> to carve dots only visible with radar and GPS.
>> My patio is paved with tiles full of invisible dots.
>> They must be made by a master carver.
>
> It is disappointing that you should use this nonsense
> to lead the discussion into the swamps.
Says Eric Swamper, who clearly missed the context.
I am still discussing the subject, but only if you
know I am.
--
p.a.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: news:k1s9v11regiveu9dd...@4ax.com
I don't see a contradiction.
a) The carver was used to relatively soft limestone and sandstone
slabs.
b) There were none of these to hand at the KRS carving site so he
selected what he thought would be the easiest rock to carve. (He may
even have made a few trial wacks at some samples.)
c) He experienced some difficulties because the stone was different
to what he was used to.
d) He also found the stone would allow the carving of better detail
than he was used to.
Eric Stevens
Uwe Müller
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:32:22 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
> <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >news:c2r5v11e841s1b5kl...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:36:09 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
> >> <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >> >news:f4e4v119rinnfsn9l...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:52:53 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
> >> >> <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
> snip >
But a starfish can do that because it has no central brain. Claiming, the
Templars had no central brain before the shut down, leaves you without a
guiding motive, the 'original spirit' you had claimed.
> >
> >There were certainly lots of pubs at that time with a group of oldtimers
> >mumbling about
> >"getting the boys together again to show them".
>
> I didn't know you were that old. :-)
So that was not what you meant with the 'original spirit' bit? Could you
then point to something more factual for that 'original spirit' or did you
just make it up?
> snip >
So you believe the prosecutors in saying, there was a secret inner 'spirit',
but you do not believe them, to have shut down the organization because of
that. And you have nothing contemporary to base your beliefs on, nor do you
feel any need to have such. Did I get that right?
> >
> >There was no right to form organisations, societies, guilds,
brotherhoods,
> >whatever, quite the contrary. Local and regional magnates would look to
> >control any such organisation or use the law against them. And they would
> >always listen to a rumour of a power establishing itself in their
territory.
> >
> >If your definition of The Templars is resting on some indefineable
'original
> >spirit', that was not preserved while the order was still in power (hence
> >the word original?), how could this spirit survive when all means to
nourish
> >it and let it grow, were taken from them? How should a lonesome
ex-Templar
> >let's say in York or Kopenhagen reach Jerusalem, install a hospital and
aid
> >pilgrims?
>
> But that was not all they were doing, not by any means.
So you know what the secret Templar inner circles did and believed, and that
they secretly held different believes and followed different goals from what
they were officially chartered to do and recorded themselves as havong done
it, and that they had an inner circle, to control them all?
And even though the contemporaries knew nothing about that, neither directly
nor by experiencing some action from this secret inner circle, that has been
handed down to us, as have been so many trivial or importatnt things? Even
though they took great pains to learn about such a secret inner circle and
doctrine?
Do you really base your whole speculation on the chance, that there were
such things, that everybody in power was stupid enough not to learn of it or
act on it, nobody to tell of it, but to keep on adhering to such fantasies
even when they could hardly make a living?
>
> >Even if there were 50 of them, they had no funds, no
> >communication, no transport.
>
> A mystery surrounds the vanishing of the Templar treasure. Where did
> it go? Who knows?
What has that got to do with anything? What good would sitting on a ton of
gold and jewels do you, if any magnate could seize the lot once you started
spending it? You ignore basic facts about the judicial system ot taxation to
furnish your speculations, after the shut down, they were no longer exempt
from these.
What other way could it have worked, supposing all your secret inner
circles, inner mysteries, inner goals were true? You supposed that the
Templars in effect survived the shut down, reduced in size but still
adhering to some secret inner belief, spirit, whatever, and that those
survivors acted on those secrets and started growing again. As there is no
mention of that sort of thing, not even something that might be related to
it, the host-orders would have had to act in complete secrecy, never
mentioning those secret leaders, their whereabouts, the means used for their
upkeep, communication etc.
And all of that without the slightest hint of some contemporary facts.
I'd call that dreaming, not speculation.
> >
> >I fear, that would be first bureaucracy/leadership to ever do a thing
like
> >that.
> >
> snip >
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Eric Stevens
<uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
No.
I can't be bothered playing these word games.
Eric Stevens
Alan Crozier
news:dt3vav$oi1$1...@online.de...
The amazing thing is that, despite all the torture which made
some Templars confess to amazing and disgusting things, they
were strong enough to keep their deepest secrets concealed. None
of them breathed a word about the treasure they had supposedly
found in Jersulalem, about the Holy Grail, about their arcane
knowledge of Solomonic temple-building and sacred geometry. It's
hard to match the historical records of the Templar confessions
with the bestselling ideas of the Baigent, Lincoln, Gardner et
al.
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Peter Alaca
> "Uwe Müller"wrote:
>> "Eric Stevens" schrieb
>>> But they would have retained whatever was the inner secret that the
>>> French used torture to try and identify.
>> So you believe the prosecutors in saying, there was a secret inner
>> 'spirit', but you do not believe them, to have shut down the
>> organization because of that. And you have nothing contemporary to
>> base your beliefs on, nor do you feel any need to have such. Did I
>> get that right?
> No.
> I can't be bothered playing these word games.
What is this? You lost your Faith in word games?
Or do you have no answer?
--
p.a.
IE J
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:bts9v1to1gvfb0qei...@4ax.com...
I am pretty sure that if it was members of Ivar Bardson's team and not those
in Paul Knutson's who carved KRS, then it was carved by Ivar Bardson
himself. I must stress once more the fact that I tried to rise five years
ago - look closer at the wood-cross found in the graves in Herjolfsnes. AND
I mean r e a l close on the best photos you can get hold of. There are
small details on two of them inside runes, the later I discussed before and
I guess a closer look will give the answer why I done so.
<snip>
Inger E
Uwe Müller
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:50:49 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
> <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >news:24b7v15feh9nqdt8a...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:32:22 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
> >> <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >> >news:c2r5v11e841s1b5kl...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:36:09 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
> >> >> <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >> >> >news:f4e4v119rinnfsn9l...@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:52:53 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
> >> >> >> <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
> >
> snip >
> >> >They lacked the 'basic' commodities of the former order of the temple:
> >> >freedom from local and regional justice, the right to own property as
a
> >> >group, freedom from local and regional church organisations, freedom
from
> >> >taxation, tolls and dues, military power.
> >>
> >> But they would have retained whatever was the inner secret that the
> >> French used torture to try and identify.
> >
> >So you believe the prosecutors in saying, there was a secret inner
'spirit',
> >but you do not believe them, to have shut down the organization because
of
> >that. And you have nothing contemporary to base your beliefs on, nor do
you
> >feel any need to have such. Did I get that right?
>
> No.
>
> I can't be bothered playing these word games.
Than stop playing word games, and provide some information.
Did you or did you not make up everything, with no contemporaray basis or
connection to contemporary events? Did you develop your specualtions from
anything but word games?
IE J
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:03:18 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn>
> wrote:
>
> >Erik Hammerstad wrote: news:45jpiiF...@individual.net
> >> Peter Alaca wrote:
> >>> Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >> <snip>
> >>>> " Obviously, if he was a forger he would have known about
> >>>> all these dots. You can assure Steve that the punches are NOT
> >>>> defects or flaking of the rock. Althought the carver did have
> >>>> difficulty on line one in the spalled second R in "NorRmen" (see
> >>>> top left photo on page 29), and where he lost three runes at the
> >>>> beginning of line two. It is likely that the carver was used to
> >>>> carving in the relatively soft limestone and sandstone slabs on
> >>>> Gotland."
> >
> >>> Who says he was experienced at all?
> >
> >> AFAIR the professional rune carver who examined the KRS in
> >> Stockholm judged him to be very inexperienced, i.e. a first :-)
If it's Erik H who produced this false information I can understand why, if
it's Peter A he simply has been misinformed! The professional rune carver
said no such thing!!!!
Having talked to Kalle Runristare, who was the professional rune carver
refered to, minuits ago I know that my interpretation of Kalle Runristare's
impression is correct. As Kalle Runristare confirmed today 17th February
2006 midday, the carver wasn't used to carve runes on stone but he seemed
experienced with runes. In other words he could very well be experienced in
carving runes on other material than stones.
Which by the way Ivar Bardson was.
<snip the rest>
Inger E