76 replies to this topic

[Swede]

lakeview rud, on 31 January 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

Swede, I suggest you take a good look at the glyph in question.  The rudder may not be shaped like the one you pictured but I am not suggesting that its a later era "Viking" ship but an earlier bronze age vessel.  Perhaps there's a double meaning to the shape as the ancients were quite fond of that type of thing.  That being said the 'rudder' may indeed have proceeded the ship glyph but its placement at about the right angle in the right place and MOST importantly about in the center of a flat but angled section of the keel is quite telling!  That is NOT a canoe as no canoes have that type of feature.  Also notice how the angle of the keel precisely matches that of the upper portion of the rudder. Also the stick figures having different heights (I messed up as its the second to the end figure that is higher on the right) is quite similar to Swedish petroglyphs.  You can look at Sweden Petroglyphs on Wikipedia but be advised that the ones they picture are from all over plus the earrings I mentioned earlier are a modern interpretation (sorry). As to what kind of implement carved these, I don't have a problem with them being carved with stone tools as perhaps the sculptor was improvising with what was on hand.  There's also no doubt that there are so many carvings here that they took place over a long time frame so a mixture of Norse and Native Americans is quite possible.

Lakeview - Am again short on time but will attempt to address your concerns in the order of bolding.

1) First, one may wish to consider dating matters. The Scandinavian Bronze Age was comparatively short and ended some 1500 years prior to the currently understood date range of the Peterborough glyphs. In addition, the Bronze Age Scandinavian glyphs are notably different than those of Peterborough. For example (and yes Lightly, am attempting to keep you in mind):



http://www.google.co...ved=0CDsQ9QEwAw

Numerous other examples are available. Some of these do depict a rudder. A narrow rudder.

2) My apologies for not being more specific in regards to the "rudder position". You will note that your "rudder" extends notably lower than the hull. This would not appear to be consistent with the shallow draft needs/capabilities associated with Scandinavian vessels of the general era. Nor would a "rudder" of such a dimension and form be at all practical. The water resistance to such an object would likely be beyond the physical capabilities of even the most robust steersman, particularly in inclement conditions.

As to your "interpretations" of keel-line shape, it would be advisable to be aware of the limitations of the glyph manufacturing processes of the time.

But let us look more closely into the geometric form which you consider to be a "rudder". See below.



http://geology.com/a...troglyphs.shtml

These glyphs come from the same general area and are, of course, attributed to Amerindian manufacture. You will note that three of these glyphs are remarkably similar to your "rudder". You will also note that none of these three glyphs are remotely associated with a watercraft. At this juncture, one is confronted with an interesting conundrum. Would it be proposed that a given culture became so enamored with the form of an unevidenced rudder structure that it became a common motif? As further support of this particular point, please see the below, Figure 10.

http://www.ontarioar..._75_part_02.pdf

3) This last is pure and utter speculation and is lacking in any credible research-based data.

Edit: Typo.

Edited by Swede, 01 February 2013 - 01:21 AM.

[Everdred]

Swede, on 01 February 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

As further support of this particular point, please see the below, Figure 10.

http://www.ontarioar..._75_part_02.pdf

Also figure 2 has two of these glyphs at the top, not too far above the boat glyph.

[Swede]

Everdred, on 01 February 2013 - 01:44 AM, said:

Also figure 2 has two of these glyphs at the top, not too far above the boat glyph.

Yes, another good example. Erred in not also referencing such.

.

[lakeview rud]

I give up, you guys are so good at obfuscation, you should be politicians....perhaps we should point out the sasquatch at the upper left or the alien ship at the lower right so that at least wolfknight will be amused.   Again, look at the glyph and tell me its a canoe!

[lightly]

Really enjoyed  learning of and seeing the Peterborough Glyphs .   Most informative as always Swede,   ..thanks.

I like this shaman >  Petroshaman.jpg   90.38K   2 downloads

That circle ,or dot,  within a circle shows up all over the world...   i used to doodle it in school , sometimes with  rays  \I/    
the human imagination is interesting.

[Swede]

lakeview rud, on 02 February 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

I give up, you guys are so good at obfuscation, you should be politicians....perhaps we should point out the sasquatch at the upper left or the alien ship at the lower right so that at least wolfknight will be amused.   Again, look at the glyph and tell me its a canoe!

There was no obfuscation involved and to state such represents a falsehood. As per your contributions #35, #37, and #45, it was your "interpretation" that a geometric form associated with one of the glyphs represented a "rudder". This aspect was utilized in an attempt to bolster your argument that the primary glyph represented a Bronze Age, ocean-going watercraft of Nordic design.

Your "interpretation" in this regard has been well demonstrated to be unsupported by the archaeological/cultural evidence. In addition, it has clearly been demonstrated that the various manipulations of other glyphs associated with the site by Barry Fell were fraudulent and would have potentially been the subject of legal action.

Two of the primary tenets of archaeological research are context and association. One of the great problems with fringe "literature" (a term used very lightly) is the repeated pattern of presenting a given glyph/artifact/construct in a manner that disassociates it from its contextual background and then attempting to associate the given example with yet another disassociated "example". This is a critical flaw in such publications and one that all should be cognizant of. One should also be cautious when applying personal interpretations to an artifact without comprehensive supportive data.

As to your last sentence: One can reasonably interpret said glyph as a watercraft. The Great Lakes region presents quite a number of related glyphs. These glyphs vary considerably in their individual form. Given the temporal/geographical/cultural context and the distinct lack of demonstrable association of these glyphs with anything other than Amerindian cultures and technologies, it would would not be presumptuous to interpret said glyph, as is the case with related glyphs, as a canoe.

.

[MedicTJ]

I saw this episode and wasn't real impressed.

Now if you want to take a look into something very interesting, there was a bowl unearthed in South America that had Sumeric writing and etching inside of it.

[Swede]

lightly, on 02 February 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

Really enjoyed  learning of and seeing the Peterborough Glyphs .   Most informative as always Swede,   ..thanks.

I like this shaman > Petroshaman.jpg

That circle ,or dot,  within a circle shows up all over the world...   i used to doodle it in school , sometimes with  rays  \I/
the human imagination is interesting.

Hi Lightly,

Pleased that you found some of the supplied information to be of interest. Never hesitate to remind me in regards to including graphics. Will attempt to provide such based upon legal/technical limitations.

Yes, the "shamanistic" element has been the subject of quite a deal of research, with a number of interpretations in regards to the specifics.

.

[Swede]

MedicTJ, on 03 February 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

I saw this episode and wasn't real impressed.

Now if you want to take a look into something very interesting, there was a bowl unearthed in South America that had Sumeric writing and etching inside of it.

Medic - Am unsure of your reference. Perhaps you could supply such? If memory serves, the suspected source of this little bit has been found to be less than credible.

.

[MedicTJ]

Swede, on 03 February 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

Medic - Am unsure of your reference. Perhaps you could supply such? If memory serves, the suspected source of this little bit has been found to be less than credible.

.

http://www.faculty.u...ol/fuentema.htm

[Bavarian Raven]

Quote

  I had to laugh because the Kensington Rune Stone was found to be a fake based on the linguistics used.

Thats actually not quiet true... the runes used on the stone do match runes from one part of the island of Gottland in the Baltic. But this wasn't discovered until quiet recently, actually. Coupled with the weathering on the stone and ruins (done by a recent study in early 2000)...well, i'm more inclined than not to say the stone is real.

That being said, the episode stated in the OP was very weird and vague imho. Cheers.

[cormac mac airt]

Swede, on 03 February 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

Medic - Am unsure of your reference. Perhaps you could supply such? If memory serves, the suspected source of this little bit has been found to be less than credible.

.

Less than credible is an understatement. Winters actually says:

Quote

To translate the cuneiform I used Samuel A. B. Mercer's, Assyrian grammar with chrestomuthy and glossary (N.Y.:AMS Press,1966) to compare the signs found on the Fuente bowl with the cuneiform syllabary. To read the Sumerian text I used John L. Hayes, A Manuel of Sumerian: Grammar and text ( Malibu,CA:Udena Publications, 2000) and John A Halloran, Sumerian Lexicon, http://www.sumerian.org/sumerlex.htm

http://www.theliving...Connection.html

So he translated the bowl using the grammar form one language and read it using the grammar of another. Just how gullible does one have to be to believe this. What's next for Winters? Claiming he can use Egyptian hieroglyphics and Sumerian cuneiform to translate Viking Runes?

cormac

[Swede]

MedicTJ, on 03 February 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

http://www.faculty.u...ol/fuentema.htm

Medic - My thanks for your response. Was rather afraid that this might have been the case in mind. As Cormac has already pointed out, the various works of Winters are frequently flawed. In addition, the provenience of this object is less than assured. This factor is further compounded by the reticence of the current owner of the object to allow further qualified research.

To add to Cormac's notes, you may find the following to be of interest:



Inscriptions on back of Pokotia Monolith



Proto Cuneiform



Cuneiform

http://www.historum....-america-4.html

The following distillation by Colavito may also be informative.

http://www.jasoncola...a-monolith.html

.

[lakeview rud]

Swede, I apologize for the obfuscation remark, seems you were just trying to educate me, but to suggest that the reason for the angled keel of the boat was a deficiency on the artist's part was pretty lame.  I can understand how the established  archeological community will resist all attempts to place some European influence on the Peterborough site since that would open up a huge can of worms but here's the thing.  This watercraft isn't the only one there.  Fell references ten other watercraft in his book and a number of them have rudders that look like rudders and in the place where rudders should be.  One also has a mast.  Most have odd looking stern or bow pieces. By the way, the boat we have been debating could also be construed as having a mast with sail.  Interestingly, one of the boats he references DOES resemble a conoe so the artists did know how to represent them.  Taking all these watercraft in sum, it would appear that there is either significant European influence on the site or a heretofor unknown art of shipbuilding on the Great Lakes existed.  Given that similar craft appear at petroglyph sites in Sweden I would favor the former conclusion.  Of course since Fell stole a lot of his material it will be necessary to confirm the sketches of the ships he showed in his book.
I would like to see the Canadian government use a recently discovered method of dating rock carvings (has something to do with how long they have been exposed to light) to establish the approximate age of the various carvings as well as determine if your suggestion that the rudder of the spirit boat was carved at a different time.  Since the site was covered in soil/growth at the time of discovery the dating may not be exact but it will give some insight into the history of the site.  If its possible to date some of the "dots" that Fell is claiming as language, all the better. More in the way of evidence is needed here.

[Everdred]

lakeview rud, on 04 February 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

I would like to see the Canadian government use a recently discovered method of dating rock carvings (has something to do with how long they have been exposed to light) to establish the approximate age of the various carvings as well as determine if your suggestion that the rudder of the spirit boat was carved at a different time.  Since the site was covered in soil/growth at the time of discovery the dating may not be exact but it will give some insight into the history of the site.  If its possible to date some of the "dots" that Fell is claiming as language, all the better. More in the way of evidence is needed here.

It sounds like you're referring to OSL (optically stimulated luminescence) dating.  The purpose of this method is to find out the last time the material in question was exposed to sunlight.  This requires careful excavation of samples in covered conditions.  It won't work at Peterborough since the glyphs are exposed to sunlight.