On Steve St. Clair and Henry Sinclair

3/31/2013

Two days ago I posted a lengthy excerpt of an 1893 address from the founder of the De Santo Claro Society, Thomas Sinclair, in which that Victorian explained that he advocated recognition of Henry II Sinclair, Earl of Orkney and Baron of Roslin as the true discoverer of America because of his intense dislike for Italians and his concern that America was losing its racial identity to a swarm of “Latin” peoples. Thomas Sinclair specifically claimed that Henry II had sexual relations with Native Americans/First Nations people, thus improving their genes and raising them up from savagery to barbarism.

In so doing, I very briefly noted that individuals like Steve St. Clair of the Sinclair/St. Clair DNA Project are investigating this claim even today, albeit with Henry I Sinclair, not Henry II: “We need to continue to identify living descendents of the Mi’kmaq tribe who we can test to prove/disprove a connection to Jarl Henry and his crew,” St. Clair wrote on his website. I interpreted this sentence as meaning that St. Clair was investigating whether Henry had sexual relationships with Native peoples. I’m not sure I see another way to interpret that. This sentence also stood behind my first mention of Steve St. Clair in my review of America Unearthed S01E13. Specifically, I said he was “attempting to prove that Henry Sinclair spread his DNA throughout North America in the Middle Ages, hybridizing the Native American population.” I later amended this after St. Clair objected.

Steve St. Clair has taken great offense to how I have characterized his research because he feels that “investigating” and “attempting to prove” are not comparable, and he also claims that he does not believe there is any evidence for the ideas he investigates. So I feel I owe it to him to place the information together to paint a more complete picture of his views.

In the episode of America Unearthed in which he appears, St. Clair is described as “skeptical” but having an “open mind” about the Henry Sinclair story. But the edited comments make him sound as though he has agreed with Wolter’s view: “It’s interesting that Prince Henry has just disappeared out of the records. There were no monuments to his death, so where was he?” he asks. St. Clair does not answer his own the question and instead states that he is “probably” a distant cousin of Prince Henry (on-screen he is labeled a “relative”), a claim that has generated a great deal of controversy from opponents who feel he is not actually related at all.

When Wolter lists his elaborate Templar-Sinclair-Bloodline theory, St. Clair replies, “I’m open-minded to the story. I’m here to find all the facts.” In the comments presented on the show—obviously edited—he does not present any contradictory narrative. He later expresses glee at the thought of the “treasure” buried at the New Ross “castle” site. At the end of the episode, he brings up the Da Vinci Code to explain why the treasure wasn’t there, and he never disagrees openly with Wolter in the comments presented on the show.

As we’ve seen with several of those appearing on the show, America Unearthed has taken great liberties with the material presented, and has edited comments sharply. When I initially discussed St. Clair, it was in the context of the comments as presented on America Unearthed, which show a man who came to agree with Wolter’s interpretation. I’m willing to believe that St. Clair was taken out of context and made to look more credulous than he is. It’s a problem with America Unearthed and a challenge in reviewing the character “Steve St. Clair” versus that actual person so caricatured.

But that’s where things got difficult for me.

St. Clair asked me to review the Sinclair/St. Clair DNA Project website in order to understand his actual position. The majority of the DNA Project’s work is involved in constructing a lineage for the St. Clair/Sinclair family back to the “Last Glacial Maximum” in an attempt to determine how closely related various modern people with Sinclair or St. Clair names are. However, St. Clair also identified a second area of study, the legends of the family:

I immediately find many of these stories doubtful but, approaching this scientifically, this new science of genetics for genealogy might help to shed some light on whether or not these stories have any basis in reality. […] My hypothesis is that, when enough myths persist, there may be a grain of truth in them. There may be some basis in reality to the legends of our association with the Templars, a Holy Bloodline, the Prince Henry St. Clair stories about early voyaging to the New World, and more.

From this, I concluded that St. Clair was studying whether there was a “basis in reality” to the various legends listed. This seemed to be confirmed by St. Clair’s further statements about the DNA Project’s desire to test Native Americans/First Nations peoples for Sinclair DNA:

Few people have been more loyal in their support of our project than Niven Sinclair of the UK. Niven is the one who has pressed, more than any other, for testing of Native North Americans, the Losna family and others who may help us better understand our complex ancient history. […] Since beginning this DNA study, I've had no choice but to focus on the study of Native populations, on finding better ways to analyze the Jarl Henry St. Clair story, on the mystery of the Newport Tower, on the crusades, on ancient navigation, on population statistics, on heraldry, and more. One result of this focus was the Atlantic Conference of August 2008, described as 'the definitive gathering of world experts on early trans-Atlantic voyaging.' Clearly this is an area that affects the history of our family, but I wanted to approach it from a more scientific perspective, examining the actual proofs and reasonable likelihoods that such voyaging was possible. This was not a 'Prince Henry' conference but, rather, a scientific gathering sponsored by a family that has a great interest in the subject as a whole.

This told me that St. Clair had an abiding interest in these alternative and diffusionist ideas. Taken together, St. Clair appeared to say that his study was designed to investigate the “basis in reality” for the story that Henry Sinclair and the Templars came to North America, built the Newport Tower, and had sex with Native Americans. He specifically, after all, hypothesized that there was “a grain of truth” wherever myths exist. St. Clair objected vociferously to any implication he was exploring a Templar connection, even though it appears on his website as an area of exploration.

Additionally, St. Clair worked with the Atlantic Conference, a gathering of diffusionists, where he specifically discussed “connections between Native traditions, traditional research and DNA research.” Among the speakers was Richard White, who believes in the Sinclair-America voyage, as well as Scott Wolter. The Conference specifically listed among its aims an investigation of whether “Prince Henry St. Clair may have crossed from Scotland in 1398.” Steve St. Clair uploaded Scott Wolter’s Kensington Rune Stone talk to YouTube in 2009 and stated that Wolter’s investigations “inevitably lead back to the only plausible story - The Knights Templar were in Minnesota in 1392 and carved the Kensington Runestone.”

While he may have been describing Wolter’s views, he uploaded this under his own name at the time that the 2009 documentary Holy Grail in America aired, with the note that Wolter’s talk “shows the details which the History Channel doesn’t have time to cover” and directs viewers to his Sinclair/St. Clair DNA Project. There is no indication that he disagrees with Wolter’s Templar conclusions; indeed, the plain meaning of the description is that it is “plausible.”

But according to St. Clair, this reading is wrong, and St. Clair has another set of writings that tell a very different story, but these largely appear outside the official website to which St. Clair directed me, appearing in blog posts and in YouTube comments.

In February, St. Clair wrote on his blog that he does not have any proof of Da Vinci Code-style conspiracies about the St. Clair family and the Templars:

The Sinclair / St. Clair family cannot yet be proven to have had anything whatsoever to do with the Knights Templar. I’ve spent months looking through any available trial records to get to the bottom of this. While I’m certainly not done, so far I don’t see our surname in any records. […] There’s actually no proof of a treasure, nor a fleet of Templar ships sneaking it out of Europe to Scotland. Zero actual proof. […] The story of Prince Henry Sinclair had become more an [sic] more popular in recent years. Unfortunately, despite some interesting circumstantial evidence, there is zero physical evidence.

He made similar remarks in earlier blog posts and in YouTube comments.

I trust you can see how this is quite confusing given what he wrote on his official DNA Project website and given the 2008 Atlantic Conference cited therein.

This second Steve St. Clair makes good sense. But I’m not sure how he squares with the one who is eager to test the Mi’kmaq for evidence of Sinclair love children. In his comments to me, St. Clair suggests that this is merely being open minded and investigating every angle. But I don’t understand why, of all possible hypotheses, only the ones about Henry Sinclair in America are emphasized on Steve St. Clair’s DNA Project website. If, as St. Clair said to me, extensive research has found no proof of Henry Sinclair’s voyage, why is he still looking for it? One can never prove a negative, but at some point the weight of evidence suggests further effort is futile. He’s welcome, of course, to do whatever he wants, but it should hardly be offensive to state that he is investigating what he explicitly says he is investigating.

And that brings me to my final point: Steve St. Clair wants us to engage in “dispassionate” research that looks at all possible explanations for the Sinclair history and heritage. Yet he became very upset when I pointed out that Thomas Sinclair, one of the key myth-makers in promoting Richard Henry Major’s Henry Sinclair myth, did so in a context driven by xenophobia and racism. Surely dispassionate research requires us to think about the context through which the Sinclair family legends emerged in the nineteenth century, all the more so if Steve St. Clair agrees that such stories have no foundation in evidence.

54 Comments

Cathleen Anderson

3/31/2013 07:25:59 am

Steve, you are sounding like a politician with your varying changes in position. It does not help credibility.

Scott Wolter definitely gave up whatever credibility he might have had with that final episode of the season.

jerri link

5/12/2013 01:03:56 am

jason, maybe you should wait till allllllllllll the facts come out before downing em, in your way..13 ships 2 black sailed arrived in california by sea the year 1359, prince henry sinclair was there on the ship named The Blessed,I HAVE THE SWORD with all etching horizonialy and vertically, telling us the REAL story, write me scott wolter at imcountry1234@yahoo.com if you would like to see and know all I do about this sword, and my theory about treasure and 9 swords

Jason Colavito link

5/12/2013 03:08:20 am

That would certainly be a trick since Henry Sinclair was not a "prince" (jarl) until 1379 and was in 1359 about 14 years old, having been Baron of Roslin for less than a year. Had he been absent from Roslin in 1359, he would not have been able to secure his inheritance.

jerri latulippe

6/28/2013 12:12:45 am

your probably right , about henery, BUT there was someone of royal lineage that came in 1359, 1 boat had some-kind of royal markings on it,maybe his father, as treasure was moved probably every 50 years if 50 year mark means that, n i do think that.doesnt mean ur right about everything u think you are.

Steve st Clair link

3/31/2013 08:33:20 am

Thanks for your opinion.

Tom

3/31/2013 12:41:31 pm

Fractual wrongness?

3/31/2013 12:42:28 pm

*Fractal (cursed U)

Gunn Sinclair

3/31/2013 12:46:11 pm

The conversation seems to have stalled, so I thought I might throw a monkey-wrench into this SINCLAIR/ST. CLAIR thing by adding information that may delight some and dismay others.

It has to do with DNA testing and what may have happened to some of the Native Americans who once lived on the northern East Coast and later moved inland.

Are the Mi'kmag and the Chippewa related? There is a paper showing multiple similarities between Henry Sinclair as a well-known Glooscap on the East Coast in the 1400 time-frame and the local natives. Did some Mi'kmag Native Americans become Chippewa?

If the oral tradition of the Chippewa puts them back to the East Coast several hundred years after an extensive, purposeful migration, that could put them right into Henry Sinclair country around the same time-frame as the so-called mythical "Glooscap" period.

Speculating here now, but how did Glooscap or Henry Sinclair know about the rice growing on water in northern MN? In other words, it looks like the Chippewa were warned inland and told where a good place to stop would be. How did this elusive European know about this far-inland geography?

Is it Templar time? Strange artifacts in MN time? Of course, I don't believe in the proposed Templar-Sinclair-Bloodline, but what a Sinclair/Templar connection? This may drive some here nuts, because it may tend to give credence to both Steve St. Clair and Scott Wolter.

But all this depends on whether or not Henry Sinclair was a Templar, right? Not necessarily. But he could have been representing the interests of Templar remnants. It is not out of the question in my mind...but then too, I believe in the authenticity of the Kensington Runestone and all the other many "evidences" of possible medieval exploration all around me up here, so I'm biased.

Something else to consider: Is the St. Clair DNA project to test only for Sinclair DNA or European DNA, or what? If Henry Sinclair was an upstanding Christian while away from Europe, there would be no Sinclair DNA to consider. However, what about European DNA in either Mi'kmag or Chippewa bloodlines.

This would be difficult to test because of later mixing, more recent than the 1400 time-frame. But my point is that perhaps Steve St. Clair should consider expanding his DNA research to include Chippewa, along with Mi'kmag, and look for Scandinavian DNA in particular, since they were the ones exploring around the St. Lawrence Seaway area. This would be a difficult process, but who knows what future DNA testing may reveal?

BTW, there is a carving of a Norse-type sailing vessel on a rock near Copper Harbor, MI. You can see this at my website; just click on the Copper Harbor Carving page:

www.hallmarkemporium.com/discoveries

(Thanks to Jason's blog, I've been averaging a hundred page-views per day.)

This is from "American Introduction to Objibway Culture and History," by Kevin L. Callahan, several years ago, from the U of MN. Subtitled "Important Terms and Concepts Related to the Objibway Creation Story."

"Madeline Island in the Apostle Islands in Lk. Superior is significant because the Ojibway believe their ancestors migrated there from the east coast of No. America and it was their final stopping place after 500 years of migration following the dream of the prophet of the First Fire to move or be destroyed. Teachings about Ojibway history are passed down orally. Birch bark scrolls were used to write down things using pictographic writing (a mneumonic or memory device using pictures and symbols rather than a phonetic writing system)."

3/31/2013 12:55:04 pm

Sorry, "An Introduction," above, not "American Introduction."

3/31/2013 01:09:59 pm

I believe you are referring to Frederick Pohl's identification of Glooscap with Henry Sinclair, which is dependent on the acceptance of the Zeno Narrative as true. The Mi'kmaq themselves reported that they identified Glooscap as a Viking (in 1927), and all of the comparisons that supposedly match Henry could also easily apply to a Viking--or a French explorer.

3/31/2013 01:50:06 pm

Please comment on the Objibwa migration history, and how it either can or cannot relate to the Henry Sinclair issue. Thanks. I value some of your insights.

3/31/2013 02:03:49 pm

I don't see how it relates at all. One must first establish Henry Sinclair actually was in America before bothering to decide whom he met while here.

3/31/2013 01:22:24 pm

Hi Jason, here's another link, even comparing a Mi'kmag game to Scottish hockey. (I kid you not.)

What I've done here is try to twist things around to the Native American perspective, including the Chippewa. Their perspective can almost strangely fit in with some of this...abstractly, of course.

http://www.sonahhr.com/sonahhr/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.history&chapter=5

3/31/2013 01:43:23 pm

From that link:

"Maybe the most intriguing discovery to date in Nova Scotia is that of a cannon found at Louisburg Harbor, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, in 1849. The cannon dates back to the late 1300's and is identical in design to those used by the Venetian Navy during this period. Since the Zeno was related to Carlo Zeno, an admiral in the Venetian Navy and a man who had achieved naval victories utilizing primitive cannons on his ships, such a find adds yet more evidence to a Sinclair link to Nova Scotia and a subsequent Mi'kmaq contact."

Jason, I think this is good evidence, even though a later ship could have been hauling around an earlier-dated cannon. But at least it's something with a little more bite to it.

Man, I'm beginning to see a real possible connection between this Sinclair fellow and Mr. Zeno! (Chuckle, not tough jab.)

Jsaon Colavito link

3/31/2013 02:02:19 pm

I checked on the cannon, and there is no record I can find of its existence outside Oak Island mystery literature. According to actual records from the 1800s, an actual cannon that was recovered was a French cannon from the first seige of Louisbourg. It was later melted down and struck into medals.

Andrew Sinclair claims evidence for the Venetian cannon, but the one he cites was actually a design used for centuries in Italy, France, and Portugual (down to the 1580s or so), and was probably used by early French colonists.

3/31/2013 03:26:53 pm

Okay, thanks for letting me know about this. It sounds a bit like the Ulen Sword up here in MN. One thing Scott did good, I noticed, was to show that the Ulen Sword is positively not a Viking-era sword, but a fairly modern one (discovered in plowed farmland quite a while back}. The city actually had a plaque of the "Viking" sword prominently displayed at the entrance of the city. Seriously, I wonder if its still there?

About your comment above on the Chippewa migration story: "I don't see how it relates at all. One must first establish Henry Sinclair actually was in America before bothering to decide whom he met while here."

I guess from my point of view, it isn't necessary to actually establish that Henry was here to further speculate about whom he might have met if he were here. I'm already supposing he may actually have been here as speculation based on what looks to me like a pretty good accumulation of associated material to suggest the possibility.

Probably circular thinking again. It's kind of funny how an accumulation of inputs can add up to possibly support a pre-supposed "myth".

Well, at least it looks to me like things add up more resolutely with the Kensington Runestone than with the Henry Sinclair East Coast visit. Both still seem somewhat plausible in my mind after seeing much of the material, but there are no slam dunks, that's for sure.

I've got to take in my daily mile walk. I hope you had a good Easter. You should probably give your brain a little rest.

The Other J.

4/1/2013 04:29:43 am

It's a kind of circular reasoning. More specifically, that's what 'begging the question' actually means -- when the conclusion you're aiming for (Sinclair hanging out with the Mi'kmaq) is inserted into the premises of the argument (if Sinclair were here, then...) in order to prove the conclusion. So the argument kind of reads like:

A. If Sinclair were in North America, he would have seen Mi'kmaqs playing hockey
B. There are Mi'kmaqs playing hockey in North America
C. Therefore Sinclair must have been in North America

This isn't a valid argument because it's not necessarily true that Sinclair was in North America, and if he was, it's not necessarily true he had contact with the Mi'kmaq. (Please don't get picky with the specifics here -- I'm just trying to show the structure of the argument by inserting the conclusion in the premises. For the structure of the argument, it doesn't much matter if it was Mi'kmaq or Bernie Mac.)

I don't really like the phrase 'begging the question' because everyone uses it to mean 'raises the question.' It's actually just a translation from the Latin petitio principii, 'petitioning the principle.'

B L

4/1/2013 05:29:32 am

I'm sure Bernie Mac is rolling in his grave now that he's been pulled into this Templar/Sinclair nonsense! He probably does appreciate the name recognition bump, though.

Before we go on with any more discussion on the Templar/Sinclair connection, supporters of this idea absolutely need to explain why the Sinclair family is on record as having testified AGAINST the Templars before the group was outlawed and disbanded. Until this is explained to me I will hear no more of this complete fantasy.

And, Gunn, before you jump in here...the absolute FACT that members of the Sinclair family testified against the Templars really does not rain on you parade. If, in your mind, Prince Henry had the ability to travel to North America he certainly would not have needed the help of the powerless, rag-tag remnants of a group that was disbanded fifty years before.

Surviving Templars, if there were any, would have been 70+ years old by then. How are a group of geriatric Europeans going to explore an undiscovered continent so thoroughly in a few years' time that they end up in western Minnesota? My dad is 70 years old and , God bless him, he can't even walk out to get his own mail.

4/1/2013 07:51:40 am

Or, the argument could read like this:

A. When previously in contact with Europeans (in this case, Scots), the Mi'kmaq may have learned how to play hockey.
B. We can be fairly sure of this because of historical accounts.
C. This slightly supports the notion that Sinclair, A Scot, may have been in North America during at least one winter.

(It does not prove it; hey, speculation is a play here.)

I think Steve Sinclair is mostly speculating and extrapolating, but what's wrong with that? He's also looking for evidence. He's not trying to include another book in the Bible. So what if the names St. Clair and Sinclair are shown to be somewhat special? Hey, Italian and Native American and other names can be special, too. I picked out my pen-name of Gunn Sinclair because I thought it sounded special. I like it when people call me Gunn. (Chuckle)

4/1/2013 10:28:31 am

"A. When previously in contact with Europeans (in this case, Scots), the Mi'kmaq may have learned how to play hockey.
B. We can be fairly sure of this because of historical accounts.
C. This slightly supports the notion that Sinclair, A Scot, may have been in North America during at least one winter."

That's still begging the question, because the conclusion (C) suggests that Sinclair could have been one of the Scots in your first premise (A) -- so the conclusion is in the premise. Beyond that, for an argument to be valid, its premises have to be true (in the sense that there's no doubt). I don't know enough about the development of hockey to say one way or the other who picked it up from whom. But (B) can be challenged because we don't know if the Mi'kmaq would have been playing hockey (as we know it) in Sinclair's day, and (A) can be challenged because if he even came to North America (not proven so it doesn't qualify as strictly true), it's not even clear Sinclair would have met anyone, let alone Mi'kmaq, let alone watch them play hockey. Premises don't work on guesses.

Let me rephrase the structure of your argument to show how it isn't valid:

A.) If my beagle Booker had gotten up on my desk, he would have seen my cup of coffee.
B.) There is a cup of coffee on my desk.
C.) Therefore Booker must have been on my desk, and he knows better. Coffee's not good for him.

But Booker's actually asleep on the couch, and has been ever since I put the cup of coffee down on my desk. It would work if premise (A) was something like I caught Booker on my desk, or there was a paw print made of coffee on my desk, because then we're talking specific hard evidence. But the loose fur that's generally flying around our place doesn't count as evidence, because it's spring and he's blowing coat -- that's not hard evidence. So even if I see a loose hair on the desk (and I do brush him), that doesn't constitute valid evidence.

My beagle Murphy on the other hand...

4/1/2013 12:29:00 pm

Forget about all that begging the question stuff, anyway, The Other J. In Steve's defense (if nobody minds too much), there is nothing wrong with petitioning the principle. Sometimes a seemingly minor point is worth considering. (Back to the evidence is in the eye of the beholder thing again, like beauty.)

I wasn't suggesting that H. Sinclair was kicked back watching northern East Coast natives (circa 1400) playing a Scottish game of hockey...no indeed, I'm right now imagining him TEACHING them how to play hockey. (Nothing racist; consider pre-historic Frenchmen TEACHING Native Americans at that time how to make a special spear-point. There is evidence of that technology spreading from the east to the west across America.)

We can't completely discount all the various Native American accounts, like the story of the Chippewa migration and the Mi'kmaq. So, their verbal input is important to consider in the speculative equation, too.

I think Jason may have hinted herein somewhere that the better explanations are not always conclusive, and that's good enough for me.

4/1/2013 12:52:11 pm

We're already heading in circles again, so I'm going to keep this short and leave off.

I for one can't leave "petitioning the principle" alone, because when even speculative arguments are made that do that, I can't take the argument seriously. Otherwise you're talking speculative fiction -- which is fine, I love that stuff. But it's fiction.

If someone wants to prove a point, and then suggests that others suspend disbelief about the evidence and accept the data with a "what if?" speculation that presumes the point they're trying to prove when considering the data, that's a problem. Maybe it's just me; I did my time in grad school, I've taught argument, I've sat before panels of scholars who forced me to harden my arguments, I've been through the peer review process, and I've published and presented. When it comes to the production of knowledge and making solid arguments, it works, and it's a much more successful than speculation. There's no way I or my students could be convincing if the argument requires suspension of disbelief with regard to the evidence so the point to be proved can be assumed to be the case when considering that evidence. "If you just look at it this way and imagine X, Y, and Z, you can see that A, B, and C is the case, which shows that X, Y, and Z is true." X, Y, and Z first have to be proved with compelling, hard, outside evidence, not evidence that internally depends on other parts of the argument being presented. And any possible flaws or counter-arguments to the presentation of said evidence need to be acknowledged and addressed with a convincing counter-argument or other data; speculation doesn't count. Otherwise the person making the argument looks at best negligent for not acknowledging the possible flaws and counters, and at worst deceptive for thinking the audience won't.

Beg me no questions and I'll tell you no lies.

4/1/2013 01:01:19 pm

Arrgh... I didn't want to bang on about this, but:

I'm not saying there's no place for speculation. Speculation is the beginning of all kinds of incredible work -- scholarly, scientific, and otherwise. But speculation isn't an argument; it's the first step towards establishing an argument, and the evidentiary process has to exist outside of speculation in order to be convincing. If we allowed speculation in the evidentiary process, we'd have a hard time trusting medicine and trying anyone justly in a court of law.

4/1/2013 01:48:41 pm

Okay, wow, that was pretty intensive, The Other J. You know what though? You're talking about proving a point or points of speculative consideration, or else such speculation is totally worthless...I guess. This to me is an odd premise in the first place.

You talk about speculative fiction and I talk about speculative possibilities. When you indicate fiction, you indicate a possibility of complete fiction. What degree of fiction are we talking about, and who is judging the degree?

Steve St. Clair talked about the possibliity of a grain of truth sprouting from myths. Are the Native American verbal accounts relating the possibility of Sinclair's voyage all myths? The Chippewa migration story all myth? Who will go tell them this?

I happen to agree with Steve (though I don't know him and have never communicated with him) that there could be something to these myths.

Most scholars (according to Wiwi!) proclaim the Kensington Runestone to be a hoax, but what about all the so-called Scandinavian evidences and, yes, even the Chippewa migration story, which not only could possibly help support a Henry Sinclair voyage to America, but also help support the idea of why Henry may have come to America in the first place...to check up on previous Templar visits.

Why did the Chippewa stop their migration from the nothern East Coast to Madeline Island, in the same general region as the KRS? To me it looks like there could be a connection at each end of a migration that could spell the word Templar, if in fact the KRS is a Templar-related stone document, and if a Templar connection to the East Coast around 1400 is hypothesized.

Part of the message on the KRS suggests a trip inland from Vinland only about thirty-five years before Henry Sinclair may have shown up on America's east coast. I'm going to purposely take the liberty of speculating that maybe Henry was privy to secretive information about said runestone, besides knowing about Vinland and landing there. Why not?

The Other J., this wasn't all directed to you, you just rang my bell on it. Thanks for inviting the opportunity to explain my viewpoints a bit further.

4/1/2013 02:23:27 pm

And if my uncle was a woman he'd be my aunt. Does that mean I should start buying him dresses?

"Why did the Chippewa stop their migration from the northern East Coast to Madeline Island, in the same general region as the KRS?"

Maybe ask the Sioux or the Fox. They drove the Sioux west out of Wisconsin and the Fox south. The farther west you go, the more you get into the Greater Sioux Nation and the more Sioux you have to deal with. They had the Mississippi buffer, had enough territory to be safe and found their level. Why go farther west to those drier, scrubby grasslands and prairies? They were forest people, not buffalo hunters. Leave the prairie to the Sioux and Garrison Keilor -- they're better with it.

4/2/2013 09:03:35 am

From The Other J.: "Why go farther west to those drier, scrubby grasslands and prairies? They were forest people, not buffalo hunters. Leave the prairie to the Sioux and Garrison Keilor -- they're better with it."

Actually, Runestone Hill is located in a beautiful glaciated area with multiple little hills and a lot of lakes, both large and small. And if I'm not mistaken buffalo used to roam farther east, just as there used to be many more bears and cougars, etc.

The Chippewa ended up in a very lucrative land-area because of the rare wild rice, easy to harvest. Fish? Enough to get full up to your gills. Just not around Runestone Hill...which is why twenty Northmen took it upon themselves to go a-fishing a day's travel north, where ten were murdered. They got too close to the Native American villages up there by the good fishing. That's what brought many of the earliest medieval peoples to the East Coast, too...cod, etc.

I see breaks in the water up here...I just talked myself into going fishing! Thanks, The Other J. By the way, do you know what it means when a fish swims in a circle? I was just wondering, in case I see one..

Steve St Clair link

3/31/2013 03:48:56 pm

Seriously Jason, you're so fast and loose with the facts that it's no longer possible to consider your writing credible. If I were to take the time to read one of your blog posts about a subject that's new to me, I now know I'd have to take hours to check the sources so I can understand just how badly you butchered the original research you're critiquing.

Your words - "The majority of the DNA Project’s work is involved in constructing a lineage for the St. Clair/Sinclair family back to the “Last Glacial Maximum” in an attempt to determine how closely related various modern people with Sinclair or St. Clair names are."

This is flat out wrong and I can only assume you're purposefully mis-stating the facts or you're unable to comprehend what you read. We're not 'constructing a lineage for the St. Clair/Sinclair family back to the Last Glacial Maximum.' Show me where it says that on my website. No DNA study can do that. You're flat out inventing crap from whole cloth. (this is the part where you ask 'so do you object to the word "back"? Or the word "the"?)

Just four paragraphs later, you wrote "Taken together, St. Clair appeared to say that his study was designed to investigate the “basis in reality” for the story that Henry Sinclair and the Templars came to North America, built the Newport Tower, and had sex with Native Americans."

You're contradicting your own statement just 4 paragraphs above. When you said the 'majority of the DNA Project's work' I thought you were heading in the right direction. Yes, 99% of my time is spent studying more recent and medieval connections between family lines and surnames. No, we're not trying to construct 'a lineage' 'back to the Last Glacial Maximum'. But, instead, you state that our 'study was designed to investigate the “basis in reality” for the story that Henry Sinclair and the Templars came to North America.'

I don't expect you to understand the distinction. You've now made it clear that you cannot see any difference between statements like that.

3/31/2013 11:38:11 pm

So once again you would prefer to criticize my writing than to engage with any actual points of fact whatsoever.

In your YouTube video explaining your DNA results, you present a chart going back to the "Last Glacial Maximum," and you explain how your DNA study intends to connect the Sinclair lineage to the broader human migration story. You present this chart on "Our Path Through Time" where you write that the "haplogroup links at left take the path from about the time of the retreat of the LGM forward in time as far as possible." You then link from that to your own DNA work. Again, this chart traces your lineage from THE LAST GLACIAL MAXIMUM to today.

IT'S YOUR WEBSITE. I AM REPEATING YOUR OWN WORDS.

Is the problem (sigh) once again that you have a specialized definition of lineage (genealogy) whereby you think it involves specific people and names (obviously impossible before records were kept) rather than the scientific/biological use to refer to a line of descent, as in a haplogroup lineage? If so, it's your vocabulary problem, not mine.

There is no contradiction with my later paragraph. You said yourself that your project can and does have multiple aims.

Again, I am only reporting exactly what you yourself write and say. No more and no less.

Matt Mc

4/1/2013 02:04:31 am

I too see it as your are mapping you families DNA back to the LGM, the chart on your website represents that http://www.stclairresearch.com/images/ChartPath-F.jpg

now the chart is rather confusing and your insert explanations do not clearly delineate when your families DNA markers separate from others, perhaps this is the source of confusion. It really is hard to say, but from looking at the chart the first major separations occur at around LGM which I read is the when you all marked you distinct family line.

4/1/2013 02:45:41 am

You should start these posts with "Ah, Mr. Sinclair, we meet again" in your best Bond villain voice.

Steve St. Clair link

4/1/2013 05:48:03 am

Your words - "I am only reporting exactly what you yourself write and say. No more and no less."

Oh, you're definitely going beyond my words, Jason. That's my major complaint. On a previous blog post, you said "Despite his denials, his website states that he has had “no choice” but to investigate whether Native Americans intermarried with the Knights Templar and thus inherited Sinclair DNA."

You added the Knights Templar into your post. Then you comment here 'I am only reporting exactly what you yourself write and say.' Bull !! You continually attribute things to what you read that were not stated. Then your comments attempt to squirm out of it and boil any complaint down to one of tone, not facts.

4/1/2013 06:06:22 am

Which, then, is exactly why you've chosen not to address the fact that the claims you are disputing in this blog post appear on your website and its YouTube video and instead complain once more about the Knights Templar, which, as cited above, you first wrote may have had a "basis in reality."

I told you before that I am happy to run a statement from you explaining your views on the "alternative" history of the Sinclairs. You told me you didn't have the time. It seems to me that 1500 word statement is much less time and effort than these 5X daily blog comments complaining about me.

So, do you deny that your website features a chart tracing the Sinclair haplogroup back to the last glacial maximum? Do you deny that your YouTube video states that you are trying to connect the Sinclair family records back to this haplogroup and its history? Do you deny that your website writes on the "Our Path through Time" page about the connection from the LGM down to the start of known Sinclair records?

Once again, you do not address any of the specific facts I have cited but instead complain that you don't like the conclusions I have drawn from them.

Even the specific sentence you just complained about again (which I later amended per your request) is not factually wrong. You denied the Templar connection (true), and your website said you had "no choice" but to investigate it (also true, as cited above).

The problem seems to me to be that you have an idea in your head about what you are doing, and you aren't aware that people who don't share your background and experiences are looking at your website and reading it at face value. At face value, I see a lot of material about Native Americans, Henry Sinclair, the Last Glacial Maximum, and other stuff that you are telling me that you don't think is an important part of your project.

The question again is this: If it isn't important and isn't true, why is there so much about it on so many pages? What do you expect the uninformed reader, one who does not know of your off-site conclusions, to make of it when they read that you have "no choice" but to investigate these mysteries, that there may be a "basis in reality" for them, and that you are expanding your testing of Native peoples?

jerri

6/26/2013 07:08:11 pm

wow steves right, you having wandering mind syndrum, how'd it go from relitive prince henery,(who i did not say was on 13 ships)only that a aship was NAMED BLESSED in lead of other ships but not leader,california was named on my sword that scott now has till he s done studying it(then he is to donate it, to masonic templars, back where it belongs.!
,were talking 1300's, thought california was discovered by spainards in 1800'sHMMM desceptincy or taught the wrong thing accidentlynative americans were not at anyones beck n call jason lol get a grip..

4/1/2013 06:52:00 am

Jason Colavito writes 'The question again is this: If it isn't important and isn't true, why is there so much about it on so many pages?'

1 page out of 52 pages of my website goes into some detail about the Mi'maq / Sinclair exploration. The methodology page has 1 small paragraph out of 53 in total devoted to it.

And you expect me to bother answering a question like that?

I didn't say 'it isn't important' and I didn't say 'it isn't true.'

4/1/2013 07:01:46 am

This is where you confuse me. You said there isn't any evidence for such a connection ("there is zero physical evidence"). Does this imply anything about the truth value of the claim? Or is this like other alternative claims where no conclusion can ever be drawn because the proof lies just beyond the next hill?

I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around why no physical evidence doesn't seem to warrant the provisional conclusion (as all scientific conclusions are provisional) that the story is false. What is your actual position?

4/1/2013 07:45:28 am

That's a good question (to me at least).

My position is that there is not as yet, known to me, any factual evidence that:
A. Prince Henry was in North America
B. The Sinclair Family were in any way associated with the Knights Templar (other than at the trials in which William Sinclairs son testified against them in a minor way and his father testified on their behalf that they were good Christians)
C. That Rosslyn Chapel has any association with the Templar Order
D. That Sinclair blood runs in Native North American veins

But, if I'm reading your comment above correctly, you think of it as case closed. I can tell you absolutely, I don't. There are many reasons I don't think the area is exhausted for study, and I'm short on time. It's not because there's some loose evidence that interests me. It's not because I know something others don't. I'll have to explain that later or I'll be late for a conference call.

I'll close this way - if the government and scientific groups thought that way, we'd be done with scientific exploration. No evidence of water or life on Mars? Let's stop going.

4/1/2013 08:04:44 am

Thank you for answering the question, Steve. As you know, it is impossible to prove a negative, and there is no way to disprove conclusively that Henry Sinclair came to America. But in the absence of any evidence, what choice do I have but to say that the story appears to be groundless and to therefore act in alignment with that evidence? Similarly, one might ask why we do not continue to seek out phlogiston (it MIGHT be there!) or test the body for the effects of the Four Humours (you MIGHT have black bile, after all). Surely, (and this is a joke) you should be testing your family for its unique blend of Humours, for which there is as much evidence as for Henry Sinclair's voyage.

The answer is that there are better explanations, and the weight of evidence favors those. It's not just that there is no evidence for the Sinclair myth, it's that there is better evidence in favor of radically different explanations, namely that the story emerged from a 1558 hoax, was developed by Scottish nationalists as a counterpoint to the Welsh Prince Madoc story, and was exploited by racist Victorians and anti-establishment New Agers. All of that can be demonstrated with very good evidence, and nothing similar can be marshalled in favor of the other view. If every line of evidence points in the same direction, this is a strong indication of truth.

Of course, new evidence could change that, and you are welcome to look for it. But you shouldn't be offended if someone says you are looking for that evidence if that's what you're doing.

I don't mean this to sound argumentative, but I am honestly asking: You sound as though the mystery will remain open for you forever. Would anything serve to convince you that this story is, in all likelihood, a fiction? If so, what would that be?

4/1/2013 04:32:07 pm

Your note - 'You sound as though the mystery will remain open for you forever. Would anything serve to convince you that this story is, in all likelihood, a fiction? If so, what would that be?'

If I had to bet money on it, my wager would be that Henry went off to be a mercenary to help pay off his debts. I recall that they did this from time to time, but don't have my notes with me. If we could prove this, I'd be extremely happy and I'd never think about it again.

If we found his burial site or a record of his burial in Scotland, Norway or elsewhere, I'd be extremely happy.

If we could even find a record of his witnessing something in Scotland or elsewhere during the period, I'd be extremely happy.

Also, I think my website gives you the impression that I work on these subjects constantly. I don't. My focus now is almost exclusively on a different direction. It's represented by the video on the bottom of the homepage. And it's not to get us back to the ice age. It's to attempt connecting our known lineages today with the known family lines in medieval Scotland, England, and Normandy. This is explained very well in the video at the bottom of the homepage www.StClairResearch.com

That focus is to look for connections between DNA SNP studies that irrefutably prove common male ancestry and historical records of benefaction to abbeys and priories that likely prove them. The convergence of these two sources is giving us new evidence that very likely proves shared paternal ancestry before the use of surnames became fixed.

4/2/2013 07:49:00 am

I appreciate your response, Steve. If I read you correctly, you are saying that the only evidence you will accept is proof Henry was somewhere other than Nova Scotia in 1398. I don't see how finding his body would help any since the current version of the myth says he sailed back from Nova Scotia to impart his secret knowledge to his family, as summarized in Rosslyn Chapel.

We know that Henry was in Norway in 1389/90, and we know that his son succeeded him as Earl by no later than 1404. According to the Sinclair Diploma, he died protecting Orkney, presumably during the English raid of 1401, as he was under feudal obligation to the Norwegian king and had to be on call. His deal with Norway also prevented him from claiming new lands withour royal permission. This doesn't seem to leave much time for the fourteen years that the Zeno Brothers' Narrative claims Antonio Zeno spent with him, worse for the fact that the elder Nicolo Zeno was in Venice from 1394-1400 (on trial and signing a will), and in Greece before that as governor. Zeno says Zichmni (allegedly Henry Sinclair) stayed in Greenland (Engronelanda), not Nova Scotia--an idea created from whole cloth by Frederick Pohl. It also says he founded a colony, for which he would have needed Norwegian permission, the records of which do not exist.

I guess I just can't see where the room is for any of the supposed adventures of Sinclair, dependent as they are on a timeline established by the Zeno Narrative, plainly a hoax.

4/1/2013 06:58:20 am

So can you explain the confusion about your DNA chart please?

4/1/2013 07:21:23 am

The chart you're referring to, now slightly out of data due to new information about the age of single nucleotide polymorphisms, explains in a visual way when and roughly where our various lineages diverged from one another. It in no way expresses the goal of the study and I don't say that it does anywhere. Jason could just as easily go to the page that talks about our Argyle lineage and claim that this is a study about the Sinclairs of Argyle. It would not be at all factually correct. Our goals are stated on the Methodology page. "Methodology" is a standard word to guide folks to the aims of the study. The chart you're referring to is a visual aid.

The study of genetics for genealogy is confusing even for people who are in a study. You guys clearly are not. This is why I'm surprised to see someone like Jason wade in with so many opinions about something he knows so little about.

4/1/2013 07:23:32 am

Let me amend that - " It would not be at all factually correct." should read -
It would be only partly correct. (in this case, it would be 1 page out of 52, so it would represent only a very small part of the overall study.)

4/1/2013 07:32:26 am

And when I read the methodology page, this is what I read under your second hypothesis: "My hypothesis is that, when enough myths persist, there may be a grain of truth in them. There may be some basis in reality to the legends of our association with the Templars, a Holy Bloodline, the Prince Henry St. Clair stories about early voyaging to the New World, and more."

Can you see why this seems to many readers like it's important to you?

4/1/2013 08:29:28 am

I did read your Methodology. I was just trying to understand some discrepancies I saw myself. the chart seems misleading and really confusing. Wouldn't a chart as containing only the length of the data your study covers better serve layman like myself into understanding what you are trying to visually represent?

And while I tend to agree with Jason, please don't lump your criticisms of him with my own questions. I am trying to understand that is all.

4/1/2013 08:03:20 am

From BL: "And, Gunn, before you jump in here...the absolute FACT that members of the Sinclair family testified against the Templars really does not rain on you parade. If, in your mind, Prince Henry had the ability to travel to North America he certainly would not have needed the help of the powerless, rag-tag remnants of a group that was disbanded fifty years before.

Surviving Templars, if there were any, would have been 70+ years old by then. How are a group of geriatric Europeans going to explore an undiscovered continent so thoroughly in a few years' time that they end up in western Minnesota?"

Come on BL, powerless, rag-tag? Use your imagination. What about the missing treasure, too? Also, old soldiers are replaced with younger ones. It's in a near enough time-frame, just as the Kensington Runestone is (1362).

What happened to the thousands of Templars who escaped? Where did they go? This is part of the overall mystery we want to solve. We can speculate without being stoned.

4/1/2013 04:31:09 pm

Keep in mind, the St Clairs also testified on behalf of the Templars.

Varika

4/2/2013 09:48:03 am

From BL: "Before we go on with any more discussion on the Templar/Sinclair connection, supporters of this idea absolutely need to explain why the Sinclair family is on record as having testified AGAINST the Templars before the group was outlawed and disbanded. Until this is explained to me I will hear no more of this complete fantasy."

Actually, saying that someone testified against a group, therefore they can't have been part of that group, is also flawed reasoning. Plenty of members of organized crime testify against their organizations every year in order to get a reduced sentence of their own. Mind, "they testified against the group" isn't proof that they WERE part of the group, either. Personally, I can only see this as evidence that they testified against the Templars, and nothing more, until and unless there is additional evidence one way or another. A roster of Templars including a name, a threatening letter from higher-ups saying "testify or die," a diary entry...there are plenty of possibilities.

Mind, I personally don't believe Henry Sinclair ever came to this continent, much less diddled the locals enough to make a genetic difference to two peoples. There's FAR too much evidence that suggests that the Zeno narrative is a hoax, and even if it were proven true, not enough evidence that Henry Sinclair was, in fact, Zichmi, so to quote the Mythbusters, "it's double busted" for me.

Steve StC

9/11/2017 11:22:03 pm

"the Sinclair family is on record as having testified AGAINST the Templars before the group was outlawed and disbanded. Until this is explained to me I will hear no more of this complete fantasy."

You need to dig deeper and do some actual research. The Sinclair family ALSO testified on behalf of the Templars. Try doing a little actual research of your own rather than just reading Colavito's slanted hate blog.

Sinclair

4/9/2013 06:46:50 pm

Steve StClair is clearly on a path of self destruction with his continuation of the fairytail of Sinclair to America. A cousin to Henry Sinclair now thats a good one, as DNA has proven Steve StClair does in no way relate to the Sinclair family.

Meet the REAL Prince Henry the Navigator, the one that they attached to Sinclair with a few add ons like the trip to America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_the_Navigator

H. Coston

4/22/2013 08:13:44 am

Wow! Not exactly sure how I stumbled upon this blog. Rest assured it is bookmarked now. I would like to thank all of you gentlemen for an entertaining afternoon of reading! Much better than the mindless History or H2 I was going to watch this afternoon.

Gerald Sinclair

4/18/2014 04:08:50 am

There seems to me great confusion on this blog regarding probabilities and possibilities, all history and the past and indeed all forecasting and the future, is a combination of both.
In this case the probability Henry Sinclair visited the USA is low because the primary source evidence is low, but the possibility is high because he had the money, the ships, the Norwegian connections as he paid homage to the King of Norway for his Jarldom, the most important in Norway which entitled him to be called a Prince under Norwegian law, not the King of Scotland to whom he paid homage as the Baron of Rosslyn.
So he often travelled to Bergen in Norway and would have had access to the Viking map that had already been used by the Vikings to visit the USA,

Now if you are working purely on known probabilities obviously the conclusion would be it is a waste of time to test the Indians DNA, but if you are working on possibilities and you are a rigorous researcher, then the very first thing you do is test the Indians DNA, and you do that for two reasons:-
1, To find nothing further and lower the probability factor and reinforce the no argument or
2. To find evidence that increases the probability factor and thus opens up the possibility of a yes argument that triggers more research in other areas.
Ideally that should be done in a completely unbiased fashion with no preconceived prejudices and definitely no overtones of 'belief' a word which is usually simply code for 'my mind is made up and no facts you can produce will change it'.

Do not forget that even Einstein did not think any work on Teutonic plates was worthwhile because he did not 'believe' they existed, just as he did not believe "God played dice" and completely dismissed Quantum physics.

As it stands the one fact re Prince Henry and the USA that stands is even if he made the trip, he was not the first European to discover the USA, and if he had of made the trip it would have been as a Norwegian Noble not a Scot, and neither was Columbus who never set foot on the mainland anyway, but more importantly they both were long after the Vikings at least had already been there.

Incidentally it has been mooted that Columbus too was aware of the Viking North Sea map per his wife, and if so that puts his trip in a new light, much more likely to get financial support and to sail out into the blue yonder looking for a more direct route to what you know is already there, than just sail off on a hunch or a wish with fingers crossed..

Eldorado

7/30/2016 03:15:09 pm

The collection of DNA samples from the Natives IMO is a front for their clandestine agendas aimed at exterminating the Tribes in the lands the English have settled..... they worked to erase the French history of the area as well in Canada....

Are they really going to research their lineage by saying that he came here to the Native Territories and BRED WITH THE NATIVES?

This is an outrage to proclaim as a Right of Passage in Canada and a declaration aimed at making the Crown more of an authority over the Canadian Provinces.....

Their direct "Family" associations are well known to have testified against the Templars as a whole, even by trying two of them.......

Recently, the English rule has been exposed in Canada. They have killed women, and children, placing them in their disgusting institutions and experimenting on them for years....the Queen is even being held responsible for personally overseeing the abduction of Native children for their Pedophile Rings and Occult Practices.......

Just look at Idle No More......they know EXACTLY who these people are.

They have gone to lengths to affect the Natives in many ways before, and it would not suprise me if this "research" was for the continued extermination of their race, and/or the further assumption of the rule over their nation by the Crown.

They have always used an educational front for their families' interests....

9/11/2017 11:14:39 pm

"The collection of DNA samples from the Natives IMO is a front for their clandestine agendas aimed at exterminating the Tribes in the lands the English have settled..."

Hahahahahahahaha.... !

Nancy Elizabeth Sinclair

12/22/2017 02:09:55 pm

Both Scott Wolter and Steve StClair when on the America Unearthed program of the History 2 channel are subjected to editing of all their material filmed and submitted. Making a show most entertaining and holding the audience captive until the next program where possibly more informative tidbits may be revealed is the goal of any television production company. Both these men continue to investigate this history. I am happy there is not much in way of insults in the comments to this post by and it's replies to Jason Colovito. I am also happy to follow Wolter and StClair through web postings and especially youtube videos in which they are featured, usually posted by themselves. My gosh I have troubles with finding out about the true nature of a maternal great grandmother who was born less than 100 years before my birth. Give Steve a break with critical reviews of him, he has much more than less than 100 years to investigate. He is still trying. Thanks for reading.
Nancy Elizabeth Sinclair