America Unearthed

[Swede]

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]

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

I like this shaman >

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]

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]

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.ucr.edu/~legneref/archeol/fuentema.htm

[Bavarian Raven]

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]

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:

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.thelivingmoon.com/42stargate/03files/Bolivian_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]

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]

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.

[lakeview rud]

Everdred, thanks for the info. Too bad it won't work, it might have shed a little light on the subject.

[TheSearcher]

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

Dr. Clyde A. Winters is a prominent advocate of Afrocentricity for one, which makes his ideas rather biased, but unfortunately he also has allowed his support for this controversial concept, to induce him to offer unqualified support for Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. To me that's not someone I would use as a reference.

Everdred, thanks for the info. Too bad it won't work, it might have shed a little light on the subject.

Wasn't a bad idea though.

[Swede]

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.

Lakeview - Apologies for the delayed response. Professional travel. To once again address your comments in order of bolding;

1) Not at all. If you have any personal familiarity with the technology and materials utilized, you will be acutely aware of the inherent limitations of such in regards to precision. This factor is readily apparent in the other motifs associated with the watercraft glyphs. Context. It should also be borne in mind that the various glyphs are interpretive depictions. Lest other fringe proponents misinterpret the previous, we are discussing rather specific cultural/temporal aspects.

2) This line is common fringe fodder. "The supremely well coordinated and absolutely controlled science community is adverse to "new" interpretations". This is hardly the reality and is readily falsified by any number of anthropologically-related recent advancements, some of which are even presented on these pages. The reason that the works of the likes of Fell are not accepted is due to flawed methodology and a distinct lack of corroborative data.

3) As per the above references, attempts to utilize Fell as a credible source are, shall we say, inadequate.

Must also apologize for brevity. Time limitations. Can provide further detail if desired.

.

[MiskatonicGrad]

sorry folks this might be alittle off topic but it does have to do with the show. I just watched the episode on some sort of "pre-colombian" underground structure some hunters found in Pa. (looked like a fancy root cellar to me) but in the show he had a map on his computer that showed location of other "pre-colombian" structures in america and some of them were in my neck of the woods (va.) does anyone have a link to a site that has this kind of info. I have tried searching and have drawn a blank. would appreciate any help. My wife and I get rather frustrated with the show (lots of potential very little satisfaction kind of like our lo...nevermind) anywho we want to visit these "pre-colombian" sites and would like a map or some sort of reference material to go by.

[JesseCuster]

I got the impression at the end that they were going to apply for permits to dig there based on the ground radar hits.

I got the impression at the end that they were going to apply for permits to dig there based on the ground radar hits.

I got the impression at the end that they were going to apply for permits to dig there based on the ground radar hits.

Does anyone else get the impression they were going to apply for permits to dig there based on the ground radar hits?

[lakeview rud]

Swede, I believe you and I are at an impasse. First off, Barry Fell may not be an expert in the archeological field but he was a professor emeritus at Harvard and I doubt if he "doctored" the various images of watercraft that I referred to earlier. Beyond using the images in his book I can discount all of his arguments and just use my own. Lets talk about 'context'. We have a chunk of limestone at least 50 miles away from any significantly large body of water and there are many images of obvious watercraft on it. Why would the natives fixate on watercraft, particularly whats referred to as a "spirit boat"? (I always laugh when experts, confronted with some sort of enigma, always bring religion into the mix!) Of the ten or eleven watercraft images only one looks like a canoe. It also is the only one with some kind of structure up top. A small shelter taking up perhaps 35% of the length would not be unheard of for a conoe. So the artists knew how to depict a conoe. The other images of watercraft carved into the stone are quite varied in appearance. They have rudders, they have masts, they have various unusual bow and stern shapes much UNLIKE canoes. If one takes the 'context' of where the Peterboriough glyphs are (on an ancient trail leading from Lake Huron to Lake Ontario and factors in that the natives knew nothing of watercraft other than canoes (thats a fact I think you will admit to) I think the assumption I have made is the correct one. At least some of the glyphs carved on that rock are attributable to people who SAILED in ships. The choices for who those people were are limited. When you factor in that similar carvings are found in Sweden and Denmark the obvious connection is made. Bronze Age Old Norse made it to America long befor the Vikings. The fact of that is carved in stone at a place near Peterborough, Ontario. The glyphs do not lie.

[Swede]

Swede, I believe you and I are at an impasse. First off, Barry Fell may not be an expert in the archeological field but he was a professor emeritus at Harvard and I doubt if he "doctored" the various images of watercraft that I referred to earlier. Beyond using the images in his book I can discount all of his arguments and just use my own. Lets talk about 'context'. We have a chunk of limestone at least 50 miles away from any significantly large body of water and there are many images of obvious watercraft on it. Why would the natives fixate on watercraft, particularly whats referred to as a "spirit boat"? (I always laugh when experts, confronted with some sort of enigma, always bring religion into the mix!) Of the ten or eleven watercraft images only one looks like a canoe. It also is the only one with some kind of structure up top. A small shelter taking up perhaps 35% of the length would not be unheard of for a conoe. So the artists knew how to depict a conoe. The other images of watercraft carved into the stone are quite varied in appearance. They have rudders, they have masts, they have various unusual bow and stern shapes much UNLIKE canoes. If one takes the 'context' of where the Peterboriough glyphs are (on an ancient trail leading from Lake Huron to Lake Ontario and factors in that the natives knew nothing of watercraft other than canoes (thats a fact I think you will admit to) I think the assumption I have made is the correct one. At least some of the glyphs carved on that rock are attributable to people who SAILED in ships. The choices for who those people were are limited. When you factor in that similar carvings are found in Sweden and Denmark the obvious connection is made. Bronze Age Old Norse made it to America long befor the Vikings. The fact of that is carved in stone at a place near Peterborough, Ontario. The glyphs do not lie.

1) In regards to inexpensive, qualified, and lay-oriented exposure of the likes of Fell, you may wish to obtain a copy of:

Williams, Stephen

1991 Fantastic Archaeology: The Wild Side of North American Prehistory. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

In this text, Williams quotes George Carter, who was actually a supporter of Fell:

Carter is rather forthcoming on another aspect of Fell's work: "Fell clearly states that he alters letters at times to facilitate reading an inscription... Too much reliance on poor copies and at times inadequate research into specific inscriptions has certainly occurred" (Williams 1991:283). Telling. Additionally, are you confident that all the glyphs presented by Fell are from the same location?

2) This assumption on your part is not supported by the associated archaeological/technological/genetic/cultural data and is typical of Fell et al. Cultural activities do not occur in a vacuum. More on this below.

3) The "similarity" to which you refer is not as associable as Fell would infer. Examples of Bronze Age Scandinavian glyphs have been previously presented.

http://www.artworldl...world-heritage/

http://www.scienceph...dia/185342/view

Again, there are numerous other examples. Note the various differences in motif and stylistic representation. These glyphs, as with the Peterborough glyphs, also need to be viewed in regards to the composite glyph assemblage of the site.

4) Your conclusion, apparently heavily influenced by Fell, has not been supported by either the nature/technologies of the glyphs or any other forms of data. Heyerdahl committed a similar error in regards to the following glyph documented in Azerbaijan:

http://jyrichter.us/.../Azerbaijan.htm

Now, as alluded to in my contribution #44 and 2) above, a few factors that the likes of Fell do not incorporate into their "research". It should be clearly stated that the following has no specific support in regards to the Peterborough glyphs and is presented as unadulterated speculation.

Let us, for the moment, consider the glyphs referenced by Fell to be depictions of ocean-going craft.

The current interpretations of the Peterborough glyphs place their construction at +/- 1000 AD or possibly somewhat earlier. However, precise dating is problematic.

Archaeological research, supported by traditional oral histories, indicates that the ancestors of the modern Algonquin speaking groups such as the Ojibwe (Anishinabeg), Ottawa (Odawa), and Pottawatomie, were located in the Newfoundland area prior to ca 1000 AD. It would appear that beginning ca 1000 AD, this group began a western migration along the Great Lakes. In traditional lore, this migration is tied to the following of the sacred Megis shell. This maritime shell (the cowrie) has been archaeologically recovered as far west as the Western Great Lakes. The actual initiation of the migration may be more pragmatically associated with climatic or cultural/population pressures.

By ca 1400 AD, the population group referred to was established in the Sault Ste. Maria area (west of Peterborough for other readers). It was in this area that this population group was first encountered by Europeans such as Etienne Brule' in about 1626.

The Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland is dated to ca 1000 AD. To my knowledge, there is no current documentation for direct contact between the previously referred to Algonquin speakers and the Norse at L'Anse aux Meadows.

The above could lead to speculation that there had been observational contact between the proto-Ojibwe and the Norse. And that memories of these observations were carried westward by the proto-Ojibwe.

To repeat, there is no current substantiation for the immediately above and this view is not personally subscribed to or advocated. Merely offered as an aspect of research that fringe "authors" do not incorporate.

.

[Bavarian Raven]

The Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland is dated to ca 1000 AD. To my knowledge, there is no current documentation for direct contact between the previously referred to Algonquin speakers and the Norse at L'Anse aux Meadows.

No, but we know the Norse did travel much further south, at least throughout the gulf of st. lawrence and probably beyond it (artifacts found at L'Anse support this). We also know that this was one of three small settlement attempts on the outer coast of N.A. (Hop being the second and I forget the name of the third atm). Norse artifacts are also found along the northern and western coast of what is today the province of Quebec. We also know that Norse traders spent 4-5 hundred years venturing to N.A. to trade, hunt, and explore. So chances are that during that period of time, at least a few ships ventured up either the St. Lawrence or some of the other major rivers and odds are there was some contact between the Algonquin and the Norse sometime between 1000AD and 1500AD. Cheers.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Bavarian Raven

[TheSearcher]

But that's still 1000AD and 1500AD, time wise still correct though, as opposed to the other view which places it in the antiquity, BC if you will.

[lakeview rud]

Yes, the selection of a Bronze Age timeline is purely arbitrary on my part. I chose that time frame because it coincides with a reason why ( Copper was being mined at Isle Royale. There are huge overestimations of how much but even at a fraction of the percent of the estimates there was enough being mined to ask where did it go. The only choices (not much found locally) would be down the Mississippi or out the St. Lawrence. Peterborough site sits on an old trail from Huron to Ontario.) But let's look at the few facts we have. The Peterborough Petroglyphs site is about 50 miles north of Lake Ontario. There are about 600 glyphs on some limestone outcrops that the Canadian government has deemed authetic enough to build a building around them to protect them. Experts (?) estimate the glyphs to be from 500 to 3500 years old. Among the glyphs there are a significant number of what appear to be watercraft. Of these watercraft at least two resemble Native America "canoes" while the rest are not readily discernable to be canoes.

Now, to my argument. If the natives knew how to draw canoes, why would they take such artistic license with the other figures? I suggest that those who contend these watercraft are all variations on "canoes" have a serious case of "The Emperor's New Clothes". Open your eyes and let your brain work. The other watercraft are ships with keels, rudders, even masts and sails. If you want to argue that native tribes of the time built these, fine, but there is no evidence they did so. If,on the other hand, you admit they are ocean-going capable, then you have to start asking who and why. You will not admit to this because, if you do you'll have to go thru that door and pursue it. Until you do, there is no point in me continuing the debate. I say that the Ojibwwe and Algonkians could not have drawn the watercraft present. They certainly may have added to the carvings on the rock and if I'm right than they were engaging in international trade well before the Vikings revisited around 1000AD. So, go back,look at the glyphs and tell me you see "canoes".

[Swede]

No, but we know the Norse did travel much further south, at least throughout the gulf of st. lawrence and probably beyond it (artifacts found at L'Anse support this). We also know that this was one of three small settlement attempts on the outer coast of N.A. (Hop being the second and I forget the name of the third atm). Norse artifacts are also found along the northern and western coast of what is today the province of Quebec. We also know that Norse traders spent 4-5 hundred years venturing to N.A. to trade, hunt, and explore. So chances are that during that period of time, at least a few ships ventured up either the St. Lawrence or some of the other major rivers and odds are there was some contact between the Algonquin and the Norse sometime between 1000AD and 1500AD. Cheers.

The third settlement area that you are referring to is likely to be that known as Leifsbudir. This "settlement" may be the product of the conflation of the settlement/procurement voyages that appears in Eirik's Saga, as opposed to the distinctions of the four + one voyages described in the Groenlendiga Saga. Wallace (2008) presents a good argument that Leifsbudir was actually a literary combination of the main settlement (Straumsfjord/L'Anse aux Meadows) and Hop.

As far as travel "much further south", this may be debatable. Would tentatively speculate that the "southern" artifacts to which you are referring are the deposits of Juglans cinerea (butternut) and the related burl. The northern range of this species (and wild grapes) is in northeastern New Brunswick. Wallace (2008) suggests that, based upon the topographic, etymological, vegetative, and cultural-technology elements, Hop may have been located in the Miramichi area of east-northeastern New Brunswick. If this were the case, the air-mile distance between Straumsfjord and Hop would be roughly 530 miles.

On somewhat of a side-note, have you been following the reports of a possible Norse settlement on Baffin? No papers yet, but provocative nonetheless.

.

[Bavarian Raven]

The third settlement area that you are referring to is likely to be that known as Leifsbudir. This "settlement" may be the product of the conflation of the settlement/procurement voyages that appears in Eirik's Saga, as opposed to the distinctions of the four + one voyages described in the Groenlendiga Saga. Wallace (2008) presents a good argument that Leifsbudir was actually a literary combination of the main settlement (Straumsfjord/L'Anse aux Meadows) and Hop.

I've read arguments arguing both. Personally I feel there were more then three settlement attempts (the later being much smaller in scale, and not saga worthy. Just a single boatload or so of persons, etc, that assimilated or died off).

As far as travel "much further south", this may be debatable. Would tentatively speculate that the "southern" artifacts to which you are referring are the deposits of Juglans cinerea (butternut) and the related burl. The northern range of this species (and wild grapes) is in northeastern New Brunswick. Wallace (2008) suggests that, based upon the topographic, etymological, vegetative, and cultural-technology elements, Hop may have been located in the Miramichi area of east-northeastern New Brunswick. If this were the case, the air-mile distance between Straumsfjord and Hop would be roughly 530 miles.

Well wild grapes do grow throughout the southern saint lawrence basin and up the st. lawrence river (and further to the south). One interesting thing of note is that in one of the sagas, the length of the daylight hours on the shortest day of the year is given. This corresponds to the southern third of Nova Scotia (and it just so happens this area had both good pasture lands in some spots and a plethora of wild grapes - three varieties). So my bet is that is where Hop was located.

Also, a note, 500someoddmiles really isnt that far in terms of Norse sailing distances. Knarrs in decent conditions could easily make a 100 miles a day. So it would be a weeks sail at worst.

On somewhat of a side-note, have you been following the reports of a possible Norse settlement on Baffin? No papers yet, but provocative nonetheless.

I've read about it. I've also read about a Norse outpost on Ellesmere island (the large island north of Baffin) that appears to might have survived into the 16th century (a full few decades longer than the greenland settlement ). Interesting field of study this is.

Cheers

[Swede]

Yes, the selection of a Bronze Age timeline is purely arbitrary on my part. I chose that time frame because it coincides with a reason why ( Copper was being mined at Isle Royale. There are huge overestimations of how much but even at a fraction of the percent of the estimates there was enough being mined to ask where did it go. The only choices (not much found locally) would be down the Mississippi or out the St. Lawrence. Peterborough site sits on an old trail from Huron to Ontario.) But let's look at the few facts we have. The Peterborough Petroglyphs site is about 50 miles north of Lake Ontario. There are about 600 glyphs on some limestone outcrops that the Canadian government has deemed authetic enough to build a building around them to protect them. Experts (?) estimate the glyphs to be from 500 to 3500 years old. Among the glyphs there are a significant number of what appear to be watercraft. Of these watercraft at least two resemble Native America "canoes" while the rest are not readily discernable to be canoes.

Now, to my argument. If the natives knew how to draw canoes, why would they take such artistic license with the other figures? I suggest that those who contend these watercraft are all variations on "canoes" have a serious case of "The Emperor's New Clothes". Open your eyes and let your brain work. The other watercraft are ships with keels, rudders, even masts and sails. If you want to argue that native tribes of the time built these, fine, but there is no evidence they did so. If,on the other hand, you admit they are ocean-going capable, then you have to start asking who and why. You will not admit to this because, if you do you'll have to go thru that door and pursue it. Until you do, there is no point in me continuing the debate. I say that the Ojibwwe and Algonkians could not have drawn the watercraft present. They certainly may have added to the carvings on the rock and if I'm right than they were engaging in international trade well before the Vikings revisited around 1000AD. So, go back,look at the glyphs and tell me you see "canoes".

Your support of your position is becoming rather circular and is not well supported by documentation. Will, however, and more for the benefit of others, re-emphasize a few points.

1) The amount of native copper extracted from Isle Royale and the Keweenaw Peninsula during the late Paleo/early Archaic through the Woodland/Mississippian periods is well accounted for. And there has been absolutely no indication that these cuprous resources were transferred beyond certain areas of eastern North America. Any delusions that you may have in this regard are the product of poorly-studied fringe authors. Documentation readily provided.

2) In regards to "artistic license", one may wish to pay attention to not only the other Peterborough glyphs but also the numerous other glyphs of the Great Lakes region, North America, and for that matter, the globe. The cognitively-related conceptualizations of H.s.s. date back (conservatively) some 40,000 to 50,000 years. You may also benefit from obtaining a copy of Dewdney (1975) (costly) or reviewing the previously presented references by the Vastokas'.

3) Your lack of archaeological background is often apparent. The Ojibwe (Anishinabeg) are Algonquin speakers. To boldly assert that the proto-Ojibwe "could not have drawn the watercraft present" (Lakeview #71) displays not only a profound deficit in archaeological studies but could also be interpreted as culturally insulting. In addition, and as previously presented/documented, the technology utilized in the manufacture of the glyphs is consistent with Amerindian technologies and methodologies of the period and is not consistent with iron-age Norse technologies.

4) The concept of early "international trade" (more accurately, intercontinental trade) with eastern North America is, as you know, a dated proposition. This proposition has been repeatedly refuted via extensive archaeological research.

Should you desire additional technical references on aspects related to this topic, feel free to inquire as to such.

.

[lakeview rud]

Swede, you are correct; I am not an archeologist nor do I have a good knowledge of Amerindian tribes. I am however, an adherent to Rene Des Cartes philosophy of questioning authority. Back then, the Catholic Church attepted to control all aspects of life and they alone knew "the truth". His reponse was to question everything and find out for himself what was the truth by investigation of the facts. Now, as back then, 'authorities' don't like being questioned. The second step in his philosophy was to start by asking the simplest questions first. That's why I have pestered you with the question of the odd-looking watercraft. If you conceded they were not Native American, that would have settled it but you have persisted in resisting that line of questioning.

With science being unable to precisely date the glyphs at Peterborough, it is possible that they may have been carved as long ago as 4000 years, maybe longer. I don't think the area was constantly inhabited by Algonquins over that time (I couldn't find any evidence of detailed archeological activity in the areato back that up) so basically little green men from Mars may have carved them. Your contention that they were carved by Algonquins is an "educated guess" backed up by a number of individuals who make their living making educated guesses. It's really not much diffferent in merit from my contention. At least I have a reason for the location being where it is. So with the idea that the watercraft issue was unsolved I began to look for other Algoquin petroglyph sites in Ontario and also the rest of North America. Interestingly, there appear to be no other sites in Ontario. There are no sites of note in NY state but Pennsylvania has as least 15 significant sites with a total of something like 40, mostly in the Ohio River Valley. Many of the sites were near rivers. I was looking for a 'spirit boat' image as that would have conclusively given the sites to Algonquin origin but I found none. In fact, NO watercraft at all were present in the glyphs available on the internet! Now this was not a comprehensive examination of all the glyphs but you would think that at least one water craft might have appeared. So we have a lone site in Ontario many miles from the next nearest Algonquin site (statisticians would say thats an anomoly) and the Ohio Valley sites with no apparent connection to the watercraft at the Peterborough site. So to me the jury is still out as to the origins of the Peterborough site. Looks like the questioning will continue.

[Swede]

Swede, you are correct; I am not an archeologist nor do I have a good knowledge of Amerindian tribes. I am however, an adherent to Rene Des Cartes philosophy of questioning authority. Back then, the Catholic Church attepted to control all aspects of life and they alone knew "the truth". His reponse was to question everything and find out for himself what was the truth by investigation of the facts. Now, as back then, 'authorities' don't like being questioned. The second step in his philosophy was to start by asking the simplest questions first. That's why I have pestered you with the question of the odd-looking watercraft. If you conceded they were not Native American, that would have settled it but you have persisted in resisting that line of questioning.

With science being unable to precisely date the glyphs at Peterborough, it is possible that they may have been carved as long ago as 4000 years, maybe longer. I don't think the area was constantly inhabited by Algonquins over that time (I couldn't find any evidence of detailed archeological activity in the areato back that up) so basically little green men from Mars may have carved them. Your contention that they were carved by Algonquins is an "educated guess" backed up by a number of individuals who make their living making educated guesses. It's really not much diffferent in merit from my contention. At least I have a reason for the location being where it is. So with the idea that the watercraft issue was unsolved I began to look for other Algoquin petroglyph sites in Ontario and also the rest of North America. Interestingly, there appear to be no other sites in Ontario. There are no sites of note in NY state but Pennsylvania has as least 15 significant sites with a total of something like 40, mostly in the Ohio River Valley. Many of the sites were near rivers. I was looking for a 'spirit boat' image as that would have conclusively given the sites to Algonquin origin but I found none. In fact, NO watercraft at all were present in the glyphs available on the internet! Now this was not a comprehensive examination of all the glyphs but you would think that at least one water craft might have appeared. So we have a lone site in Ontario many miles from the next nearest Algonquin site (statisticians would say thats an anomoly) and the Ohio Valley sites with no apparent connection to the watercraft at the Peterborough site. So to me the jury is still out as to the origins of the Peterborough site. Looks like the questioning will continue.

As per usual, in order of bolding;

1) As previously noted, this has been apparent. Your candor is appreciated.

2) The cumulative data of the extensive archaeological, ethnographic/cosmological and lithic technology research conducted in regards to the Peterborough glyphs leaves little doubt that the glyphs are the product of Amerindian manufacture. There is no credible documentation to the contrary. Any misconceptions that you retain in this regard are unfounded.

3) This attempt at disparaging qualified research is less than becoming. As previously cited (Dewdney 1975, Dewdney and Kidd 1973, Vastokas and Vatokas 1973, Vastokas 2003) the iconography and even location of the Peterborough glyphs are consistent with Algonquian cosmology. In regards to the latter:

For the Algonquian-speaking peoples, landscape is sacred and rock art sites are sacred places. Rock art sites are located at the junction of the layers of the universe, that is the Upperworld, the Earth’s plane and the Underwater and Underworld where communication between the cosmic levels is effectuated through openings in the rocks such as caves and crevices where manitous (spirits) live (e.g. Vastokas and Vastokas 1973, 53-54; Molyneaux 1983, 5; Rajnovich 1994, 35).Rock art sites are also places where the four elements of water (i.e.lake or underground stream), earth, air and fire (i.e. sun) meet and can be experienced physically and spiritually (Gehl 2006; Shirley Williams, personal communication 2007). The four elements are essential in Ojibwa religious thought because they are the primordial substances from which the entire physical world (earth, celestial bodies, plants, animals and people) has been fashioned (Johnston1976, 126, 136).

Dagmara Zawadzka

The Peterborough Petroglyphs/ Kinoomaagewaabkong Confining the Spirit of Place.

Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM) C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-VilleMontréal, Qc, Canada.

In regards to the former, kindly reread the below:

http://books.google.... glyphs&f=false

For further information of Algonquian pictography/cosmology:

Vastokas, Joan W.

2003 Ojibway Pictography: The Origins of Writing and the Rise of Social Complexity. Ontario Archaeology

No. 75. Ontario Archaeological Society, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Cleland, Charles E.

1985 Naub-Cow-Zo-Win Discs and Some Observations on the Origin and Development of Ojibwe Iconography. Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 22, No. 2 , pp. 131-140. University of Wisconsin Press.

To quote:

The geographic distribution of rock art sites and the iconographic themes that are represented seem to indicate that carvings and paintings on the rocks of the Canadian Shield were produced by the ancestors of Algonquian populations (eg, OJIBWA, CREE, INNU).

http://www.thecanadi...and-petroglyphs

Additional reading:

Monk, Kimberly E.

1999 "The Development of Aboriginal Watercraft in the Great Lakes Region," Totem: The University of Western

Ontario Journal of Anthropology: Vol. 7: Issue. 1, Article 9.

In further relation to watercraft and the Peterborough glyphs:

As Vastokas & Vastokas (1978: 126) point out in a discussion of the boat images of Peterborough petroglyphs in Canada, boat imagery has deep roots in both Eurasian and North American shamanism. (Emphasis added).

Antti Lahelma

THE BOAT AS A SYMBOL IN FINNISH ROCK ART. Institute for Cultural Research, Department of Archaeology. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.

4) It may be that your attempts at researching this aspect are limited by your understanding of the topic. The Algonquian language group is a large and encompasses numerous past and modern groups. Amongst these are the:

1. Abenaki

2. Algonkin

3. Arapaho

4. Atikamekw

5. Beothuk

6. Betsiamites

7. Blackfoot

8. Cheyenne

9. Chicacoan

10. Cree

11. Illiniwek

12. Kickapoo

13. Lenape (Munsee and Unami)

14. Mahican

15. Maliseet

16. Massachusett

17. Menominee

18. Meskwaki

19. Miami

20. Mi'kmaq

21. Mohegan

22. Montagnais/Naskapi (Innu)

23. Nanticoke

24. Narragansett

25. Nipmuck

26. Ojibwe/Chippewa

27. Ottawa, Potawatomi

28. Passamaquoddy

29. Pennacook

30. Pequot

31. Powhatan

32. Quinnipiac

33. Shawnee

34. Wampanoag

35. Wicocomico

Due to variables such as past group movements and technological patterns, association of a given archaeological site, particularly an earlier one, with a specific modern group can be problematic. If you conduct your search under the heading of the Woodland Tradition, you will find that numerous sites from this period have been documented in Ontario. Can elaborate on the above (in regards to diagnostics) if desired.

As to Ontario petroglyphs, there are a number of documented locales. The Mud Lake Portage site (near Lake of the Woods), Rock Lake, Lake of the Woods, and Algonquin Provincial Park, to name but a few. Pictoglyphs are also documented in a number of areas including the Quetico. If memory serves, the Quetico also presents some petroglyphs. Quebec contains quite a number of glyph sites. Glyphs are also documented in US states bordering the Great Lakes (Michigan, etc.). On a continental scale, glyphs are present, in varying densities, across the continent.

5) Petroglyph. Mi’kmaq canoe. Other canoes, including additional Mi'kmaq. Documented by George Creed, 1880’s. Creed also documented numerous contact/post-contact sailing vessel glyphs created by the observing Amerindians.

http://museum.gov.ns...hs/P_ships.html

There are a number of other examples available in white papers. The “grey literature” contains further examples.

Edit: Spacing, font.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Swede