Scott Wolter Says Narragansett Rune Stone Hoax Claims Might Be Based on Religious Opposition to Him

7/12/2014

When a Providence man announced that he had carved the Narragansett Rune Stone during a fit of childhood boredom in the summer of 1964, the claim immediately challenged the deeply held beliefs of fringe thinkers across the country. Scott F. Wolter in particular has maintained that the handful of inscribed runic figures aren’t just older than 1964 but in fact are evidence that the Knights Templar brought the Holy Bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene to America.

“This stone is one of the very few artifacts that proves the Templars came to America,” Wolter asserted on America Unearthed in 2013.

Others have now come forward to challenge Everett Brown’s claim to be the author of the runic carvings. According to a follow-up article in the Independent, self-described amateur archaeologist Steve DiMarzo is collecting affidavits from witnesses who claim to have seen the inscriptions prior to 1964. DiMarzo is an enthusiastic supporter of Scott Wolter’s work, according to those I’ve spoken with who know of him and his beliefs.

DiMarzo believes that Brown is lying because of the Hooked X® that appears on the rune stone. Brown claims that the symbol was the result of a carving error, but DiMarzo maintains that the symbol was not available in standard runic alphabet sources like those Brown claimed to have used and therefore is a sign that the stone is genuine.

The Hooked X®, the variant of the A-rune whose popular name is a trademark registered to Scott F. Wolter, appears on the Kensington Rune Stone but is not known from any medieval inscriptions in Scandinavia.

DiMarzo accused Brown of having “ulterior motives” and suggested that his claim to have carved the stone was motivated by a desire to prevent the stone from being placed on permanent public display in order to suppress the truth about history.

Wolter concurred in an email to the Independent, in which he accused Brown of having religious motivations for attempting to suppress the truth about the Jesus Bloodline:

Why Mr. Brown would make such a claim only he can answer. However, the highly controversial nature of my Templar theory for the possible origin of this inscription has caused very negative reactions by some Christians. […] I don’t know what Mr. Brown’s religious leanings are, but it is well documented that some otherwise honest people have made poor decisions they justified as doing God’s will. This could be the motive for his “confession.” I obviously don’t know for sure.

Wolter has previously accused the Catholic Church of working to oppose his theories and suppress his research, though he is not consistent on this point. He has also suggested that the Cistercian-Templar-Bloodline people have infiltrated the Church and used the clergy sex abuse scandal to distract the Church, resulting in less attention to fringe figures like Wolter.

The Independent published testimony from Pat Lindsay, a woman who claims to have seen the carvings in 1948. “I was 11 years old and I remember playing on the stone at low tide when it was showing and there were carvings,” she said. “We called it the Indian stone because we thought the Indians carved it.”

The paper asked Wolter for his analysis of the inscription. Wolter told the paper that he removed a sample of the rune stone in 2006 with the permission of the state archaeologist. After looking at the piece of stone under a microscope, he concluded that the inscription must be “at least 100 years [old] and likely many centuries” due to the weathering. His professed date range, therefore, of between roughly 1206 and 1906 is a bit vague for fingering the Templars, but it also fails to exclude the scholarly consensus that the stone was carved in late 1800s or early 1900s, likely in response to the publicity surrounding the Kensington Rune Stone.

Since Wolter’s own analysis cannot exclude a 1900 date, I’m inclined to believe that the carvings date to around 1900 and were inspired by the Kensington Rune Stone. But until someone can produce dated photographs of the stone, we won’t know for sure. On the other hand, if that conclusion is fully supportable with Scott Wolter’s own geological work, there isn’t much reason to imagine a widespread Templar occupation to explain it.

As maritime historian Ron Mather told the Independent:

With the exception of archeological remains in the northern part of Newfoundland, we have no verifiable historical or archeological evidence of Scandinavians in North America before Columbus. […] On the other hand, we have what appears to be more frequent attempts to create a connection with a Scandinavian past beginning in the 19th century, a period which saw a resurgence of Scandinavian national pride.

That effort began in the 1830s with Carl Christian Rafn and his attempts to prove that Vinland was located in New England, and his work directly leads to that of Scott Wolter today, particularly his work trying to connect the Newport Tower to the Cistercians, which you can read here. Wolter adopts this idea and through the Cistercians assumes that the Knights Templar were responsible for what Rafn attributed to Scandinavians.

168 Comments

Gregor

7/12/2014 05:04:13 am

"Wolter said unto him, verily I say unto thee that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me a whole bunch of times, man, because can we not just stop this persecution?." - Book of Fringe, Templars I, 3:79

Maybe I'm just behind the times... but does stuff like this really count as "journalism"? It's a blog post on a franchised site, and one that (apparently?) he is the only contributor to. Never mind that the amount of critical thought applied is capped at "well this guy says something else!!", or that the author includes his college and high school newspapers as 'work history'... he even cites (in his own "about me") his recognition for "investigative reporting". Investigative, like Linda Moulton Howe "investigative"?

I just find it so frustrating that shoddy "evidence", reckless opinion, and affidavits of MEMORIES are considered valid in what ought to be rather straightforward, scientific (or at least academic) discussions.

Only Me

7/12/2014 12:01:22 pm

^^^^
This. So much win!

Wairuarangatira link

11/6/2014 09:36:30 pm

He is way off beam on this one. The hooked X has got nothing to do with Jesus at all. It relates to astronomy...it wasn't the Knight Templars either it was the Free Masons

Chaz Chaffin

1/31/2015 12:21:41 pm

There is strong evidence that the Free Masons are decedents of the Knights Templar. It is unfortunate that people attack the theorists personally rather than challenge their methods. Possibly a lacking within.

Diana Dailey

3/21/2015 04:36:56 am

There are certain secs of the free Masons that are connected to the old Knights Templar. They keep secrets to this day of the divine family.

Matt

3/25/2016 12:47:44 pm

Can I have the number of the guy who has been selling you that pot you have been smoking? For many many years.

Matt

3/25/2016 12:44:00 pm

Have you even read the full research? So sad what jealousy has done to you. By the way, your field research is published where?

Historian

3/25/2016 01:47:44 pm

In what geological peer reviewed journal are Wolter's weathering studies published? Answer: nowhere. He cannot qualify his research to be accepted by his peers in geology!! Lol. Why is his honorary degree in geology no longer included in his resume? Answer: because it never existed.

Americanegro

11/14/2017 02:52:04 pm

I know this is three years old but I am just now re-reading it.

"Wolter told the paper that he removed a sample of the rune stone in 2006 with the permission of the state archaeologist."

Given Wolter's history that sounds like an obvious lie.

Here's another possible theory which accounts for everyone's story (except Wolter's of course because Scott Wolter is an idiot):

Mr. Brown watched America Unearthed, rightly concluded that Wolter is an ass as well as an idiot and decided "Well, I'll just put a stick in the spokes of the Wolter wheel." No religion needed, just lancing an ass.

And the idea that having a (still) camera was unusual in the 20th century is ludicrous, risible nonsense.

Historian

7/12/2014 05:14:56 am

Mrs. Lindsay is a sibling, one of 7, of the McMahon clan, which bought the property in front of which the stone apparently sat, in 1948. Prior to that, my understanding is that the Walling family owned Pojac Point from 1840 to about 1940, and that family records make no mention of the stone or an inscription. The coastal geological report showed that the area where the stone sat in water in 2011 was dry land in 1939, not yet eroded into the ever encroaching sea. The spot would have been a bit under 10 feet above the mean high tide mark in elevation. If never mentioned, that we yet know of, while on dry land above the intertidal zone, it may have been buried, it may have been upside down in relation to a possible inscription, or it may have been devoid of inscription and attracted no attention.

Someone mentioned that because the McMahon's called it Indian Rock due to the carvings, then perhaps it was not this rock, whose characters are clearly not petroglyphs. But, surely the McMahons would recognize the Narragansett Stone had "different" characters, if that were the case, and they were laymen, and children in 1948, not seasoned petroglyph researchers.

Brief observation regarding older and younger characters on a rock. The natives pecked petroglyphs on rocks. Generally not engraving or incising. Just peck in lines with a harder smaller stone. It takes a certain amount of time, once the outer skin or cortex of the boulder has been broken, for the surface of the interior of the characters to matched the deeply aged patina of the rocks cortex or skin, exposed for tens of thousands of years perhaps. Put another way, assuming for the sake of argument that Brown carved the inscription in 1964, the family in question should have noticed new characters and one would expect they would recognize what is visible now was quite different in 1948. But, that isn’t proven, or at least that is not something pointed out by them. However, once Brown carved the characters, the patina difference between the surface interior of the characters would have exhibited a much lighter color/surface because there is no patina at first. Once Brown carved an inscription in 1964, in other words, that inscription would have exhibited a very fresh patina for awhile. Not sure how long, but it would have displayed a very stark contrast. The fresh nature would have been very obvious for an indeterminate amount of time. I’ve collected and surface hunted Native American artifacts for decades, and depth of patina, or lack of depth of patina is something that eventually becomes an unconscious level of recognition. And you learn, thereby, how to spot fake artifacts! So, FWIW, which isn’t much at this point in time, but it is a fact that if a Brown did carve it in 1964, for some amount of time that inscription would have looked like it had been carved “yesterday”. No mention of that by the McMahon clan or others, but wanted to point out it would have to take time for the patina of a carving made today to match the patina of the “host rock’s” outer surface/cortex/skin. Would it still look fresh in 1965? Good question. Would 50 years of daily tides have produced the degree of water-wear softening of the lines seen? Another good question. Don’t have the answers.

Gregor

7/12/2014 05:35:58 am

An interesting read, and I thank you for it. Personally, I don't think the testimony of "locals" can be given any value because, as previously mentioned by Jason and other skeptics, they fail the 'local pride' test. That is, given that these individuals are self-identified (they volunteered to contradict this man, which in itself suggests they're "open" to fringe ideas), they're from this area (with the stone being a local tourist attraction & source of pride, at least for the Fringe), and they're citing memories up to nearly 70 years old... it doesn't seem reasonable - at least to me - to accept their claims as proof of a "hoaxing hoax", and certainly not at face value.

What would be more interesting, at least to me, is if some sort of *external* record could be found. Say, the diary of someone who just passed through, or spent a summer there, or had visited family from far away. Then, at least, one could argue that the source lacked any vested personal pride in insisting that said inscription was real and existed prior to the 1960s.

Historian

7/12/2014 06:06:52 am

Agree we need a lot more actual confirmation one way or another. These individuals, at least David McMahon and Jane Goodhue did come forward with statements long before this latest twist involving the Brown Brothers. And I did note 2 very different accounts from Mr. Brown as to how the Hooked X was chosen by him. In the more recent description, he was carving the X when the chisel slipped and created the little bar that creates a hooked X. Not impossible, but not the exact same description a I was first told. Yes! the memories are old. And I guess you are suggesting it became known as Indian Rock when Mrs. Lindsay was not age 11, but at least age 27. Yes, memory is fallible, but if weighing the two narratives, Brown and McMahon clan, what exactly elevates Brown's? His translation? I was quite impressed with him to be honest. Told him I believed him. And I'm the guy who let the world outside Pojac Point know the Narragansett Stone existed, in a 1985 Neara article. I was blown away the day we walked up on that rock, with the help of a local, the head of grounds keeping at Scallibrini Villa. My memory is near 30 years old now, and it's intact. The characters were filled with barnacles, making the lines almost looked chalk. As a petroglyph researcher, could not ask for more. Plus an extreme moon low tide that placed the rock well out of water, 4/7/85. Saturday. The McMahon's were no doubt living there and had already known the rock for near 40 years already. Local pride? They never came forward in all the years they knew about it until Scott Wolter published the location in print and broadcast. They obviously had pride in it, but pride does not a completely false memory create. In 7 people. I was proud to "find" the rock. I was proud to send it out into the world of "Norse in America" debates, but my pride, and I have an absolutely extreme form of RI local pride; I'll give perfect out of town strangers a tour of my beautiful state on a moments notice, lol. But truth outweighs any local pride I have. Heck, you would be hard pressed to find any prouder RI hickster then me. Lol. I wrote many articles with local angles for that reason.

So, while I can't argue, a lot more is required to arrive at a place all can agree amounts to "unassailable proof", I don't think local pride or the age of the memories is quite enough. I used the same argument when contemplating 90 year old Goodhue's 62 year old memory. But when this family remembers calling it Indian Rock as children, when, in fact, it did not have characters on it until they were actually older adults, the carvings appeared in 64, and they called it Indian Rock then instead, when the carvings would have looked as fresh as "yesterday", because they simply could not have the same patina as the rest of the rock(look at the patina difference today where the heavy equipment used to lift and dump it in deeper water scratched it's really allowing for a level of memory loss and false memory that might be overstated a bit. I'm not a big fan of the local pride argument I guess. I'm perfectly capable of being objective; I can't just assume these folks are all just eager to promote a more romantic outcome for their stone. But, I respect your point of view, and it provides one more reason for me to believe the story will likely never be answered anyway.

Historian

7/12/2014 06:24:37 am

Upon further thought, I think I'll reject the notion of "fails the local pride test" That may very well be something to be aware of, but it's close or tantamount to saying "any testimony from locals should be taken with a grain of salt, relatively speaking". I can't buy into that general rule of thumb, if rule if thumb it is for some, at all. Best I could do is pay attention to the testimony to see how someone is coming across. And make note of narratives that are filled with the talking points of fanciful theories, perhaps. But it's got to be case by case, and not a simplistic rule, IMHO. If you can't prove their memories are demonstratively false, I don't think saying "local pride" renders their testimony of no value is wrong. Very wrong.

7/12/2014 06:37:11 am

@ Gregor: Surely it's going to far to say that testimony by locals cannot be given *any* value!

@ Historian: Pretty much every serious researcher whose work requires examining people's testimonies must take account of the biases they are likely to have (as suggested by countless studies in psychology, etc.). This includes things like parental love, peer pressure, and, yes, local pride. Ignoring such things deservedly devalues one's work in the eyes of others.

Gregor

7/12/2014 08:11:39 am

@EP

I suppose I should qualify that... there's nothing wrong with including stories, tales, memories and other such things in examinations of folklore, sociological dynamics, and things of that nature. But when it's a matter of "X has be true, because I saw it back when I was 7 years old!", it must be - in my opinion - taken as "interesting, but without merit" simply because we cannot go visit that 7 year old child, nor ensure that the memory is both valid and accurate. It would have to be corroborated with something else, like a photograph other other tangible evidence (the more, the better)...in which case it's really not the story that's being examined anyways.

A similar situation developed with the UFO phenomena... lots and lots of rumors, tales, sightings, reports, hearsay... no (or at least, *very little*) physical evidence. What one is left with, then, is a lot of interesting stories that have no scientific value. One could, in theory, argue that stories can at least aid in "what it's not"... but usually that collection is bigger than the Grand Canyon.

7/12/2014 11:19:29 am

@ Gregor: It appears that we're in agreement, then :)

Walt

7/12/2014 01:46:38 pm

But Gregor, if you don't think the testimony of locals has any value, why would you need evidence at all that the carvings "existed prior to the 1960s"? One local man's story is all that dates the carvings to 1964. The difference, of course, is that the local story you do believe from 1964 goes against what Scott Wolter believes, while the 1948 story you don't believe could possibly support him.

Jason has been objective, tossed out both stories for now, and is "inclined to believe the carvings date to around 1900". Academia agrees.

Steve StC

7/12/2014 02:16:59 pm

Historian,

I think you're made Jason-and-his-keyboard's acolytes feel just wonderful about themselves while you dismantled their baseless and unsupportable position about the NRS, the patina, and the carvings.

The point is much more clear, however: they will simply agree with whatever Jason-and-his-keyboard pukes out.

Any one of the acolytes could have offered a more rounded view of this situation. Jason, himself, could have considered the alternative view.

Except Jason - and his acolytes- are so eager to tear down, they don't consider the entire picture.

Historian, amidst a sea of blind agreement, your logic is refreshing.

Walt

7/12/2014 02:36:32 pm

Steve, the date Jason provides, around 1900, is within the date range Wolter accepts. Wolter says 1206 - 1906 and academia says late 1800s through early 1900s. The only person who suggested an incompatible date is Brown, and Jason presumably doesn't believe it since he's inclined to believe it was carved around 1900, not 1964.

So, what's the problem? While a couple people commenting believe Brown's story, Wolter, Jason, and academia all seem to be discounting Brown's story in unison. Everybody should just give each other a big hug this one time.

Steve StC

7/12/2014 03:13:39 pm

I guess you're right, Walt.

I shall retract my fangs.

Walt

7/12/2014 03:27:52 pm

Retracting your fangs is probably as close as we're ever going to get to a hug, so that's good.

But, the rough date is the only thing they all slightly agree on. Wolter obviously believes a date much closer to 1206, and I'm sure they still disagree on all the conjecture, so keep your fangs on standby.

Gregor

7/12/2014 04:06:54 pm

@Walt

It's not that I support Brown's story over the others so much as it is my opinion (born out by the academics you mention) that the stone's inscription is fake. To me, it's inconsequential whether it's fake from 1900, or fake from 1964. I don't think its unreasonable to assume that those coming forward to dispute brown are not doing so because they think it was faked in 1948 instead of 1964, but because they think it's real.

I do admit that I think the stone's inscriptions are fake, and therefore am disinclined to believe local tales to the contrary based on (fallible) memories and nothing more. As for Brown's story... as I noted with the photograph comment, I feel it's unlikely to ever have genuine proof that Brown is the culprit. What we have is plausibility, and to decide which has more:

A) a handful of locals who are willing to sign affidavits that they have childhood-to-young-adulthood memories circa 1940 of a very specific inscription on a certain rock, gathered by a man actively promoting it as pre-Columbian (a date not supported by academic study)

B) A guy who "admits" to carving it, and gives a date 64 years later than a previously-stated 700 year span.

I suppose I should clarify, though, that my "acceptance" of Brown's story is somewhat dismissive - that is, I don't "credit" him with the creation of the stone, nor imply that he should be granted notoriety, fame, or adulation. My only opinion is that the inscription is fake - beyond that, and barring any conclusive evidence, if he want's to claim to be the guy who took a chisel to it, I don't care.

Only Me

7/12/2014 07:15:02 pm

[so keep your fangs on standby]

The problem with biting is you stand equal chance of getting bitten back. I'd rather avoid it, since I think some of us would be unpalatable. XD

Mark E.

7/13/2014 06:15:38 am

Maybe Steve's just trying to get a DNA sample?

7/13/2014 08:19:24 am

Given that real scientists (as opposed to those who play scientists on TV) are inclined to date the inscription to late 19th century, I'm inclined to disbelieve Brown. Contrary testimony of other locals is of marginal value at best.

By "real scientists" I mean oceanographers and maritime historians at URI, who STUDIED THE ROCK WITHIN THE LAST FEW MONTHS and and thought it wasn't too valuable to be placed in a public park AFTER having just been stolen!

Mark L

7/15/2014 12:57:51 am

If you saw something like that, even in the days when cameras were harder to come by, wouldn't you take a photo of it? The existence of a photo pre-1964 would sort this problem out immediately.

Matt

3/28/2016 02:45:07 pm

I don't believe you answered my question. That speaks volumes. As to this comment, you have clearly shown your ineptitude on the subject. Where is your work published I ask again. Would you like Mr Wolter's license number? I assure you HE is a Geologist.

Historian

3/29/2016 06:50:37 am

I was speaking of his honorary Masters degree in geology. He had to remove it from his resume as it did not exist. He does have a Batcheler's degree. As a scientist, he is expected to publish his claims concerning the validity of his weathering dating technique in peer review venues. He has never done so, because it would not be accepted for publication. He is forced to publish in the popular press as a result. I did not answer your question, because you were not addressing me directly. He is certainly not an historian, and is clueless on how to conduct historical research. If you want to know the staggering number of mistakes he made, both in runology and history, read the review of "The Hooked X" by Scandinavian runologist Henrik Williams. As Williams astutely pointed out, far better if Wolter stuck to the discipline he was trained in, geology. And published his results in a scientific journal, if he actually has proven his dating method for the weathering of rock, then that is what he needs to do. But, he can't. So, he relies on the popular press and the general public to "prove" his points. He wants to use geology to prove a minimum age for the NS, but he cannot submit to a peer review venue in the discipline of geology. That tells you everything you need to know about his qualifications as a "scientist". In addition, he does not use the scientific method, but simply cherry picks to fit his theory. Worse, his theories are untestable. He begins with a premise, the existence of a biological bloodline of Jesus Christ, that can neither be proven nor disproven!! The very opposite of the scientific method. Even as he has the gall to say "hard science trumps soft science" like History. All the while using erroneous historical facts as Henrik Williams points out. Unable to promote his theories in ANY professional journal in geology, history, or runology, he appeals to the popular imagination, where the standards are not as rigorous as science. Wolter's theory can neither be proven, nor disproven. Very, very convenient as he can just keep publishing his imagination based ideas in popular venues, while somehow having the nerve to say his completely unproven "hard science" is not published in a venue where scientists can actually critique and respond to it. What a joke.....

Historian

3/29/2016 07:24:49 am

Just to zero in on your question again, if you look at where you posted that question, it should be obvious, whoever you were addressing, it was not me. It looks like you were addressing either a poster named "Gregor", or Colavito himself. I merely responded to your silly defense of Wolter, in asking where someone had published, by pointing out that Wolter,himself has NEVER published any of his "theories" in a peer review journal in geology, history, or runology. Thereby making it sound very silly to wonder if someone else had read all of Wolter's "research" or had themselves published. As an historian by training, I submit to peer review journals. As an amateur with no training or understanding of history, Wolter publishes in popular venues and appeals to the popular imagination for support. His "can never be proven nor disproven" narrative is just that, a narrative. It is entertainment, not science. He wants to be thought of as proving his point via "hard science". Why then, is he so afraid to submit his results to a peer reviewed journal,of science, to be judged by other geologists? He has simply never answered that question, and I know, from personal experience, that it has been asked many times. When he decides to finally publish in a professional venue, then we will see just how rigorous his testing method really is, and just how much agreement he will garner from other geologists. For now, it is a fact that geologists with far more credentials then Wolter, and credentials that are not phony honorary Masters degrees, have gone on record as saying the weathering tests Wolter claims are 100% proven, are in fact in no such position at all. Which could be more clearly pointed out, if only Wolter submitted his findings to a peer review journal to be responded to by his peers in geology. Silly to ask others where they have published, when Wolter himself can only publish in the popular press, a press designed to entertain and not adhere to scientific methods or standards of historical research. The burden of proof is on Wolter, not his critics. You ask for the publication history of his critics, while defending a man who dares not submit his "research" to publications where it can be judged by geologists or historians, and where he can then have a chance to respond himself. I laugh hard, as well as shake my head in disgust" when he calls his research "hard science" and says it trumps "soft science", like History, yet he makes up honorary Masters degrees, and he cannot get his junk science into an actual journal of science or history. What a phony!

Historian

7/12/2014 05:39:54 am

If the Brown's produce a photo from 1964, showing him working on an incomplete inscription, case closed barring photo shop. If the McMahon's can produce a photo from the 50's showing the inscription, Brown's narrative can be dismissed. But as far as the value of the memories in this case, it should at least be pointed out that this is not the testimony of a casual observer who remembers walking that beach one day in the 50's and seeing writing on that rock. My understanding, to be corrected if I'm wrong, but the McMahon's felt like "caretakers" of that rock. That is what I was told at the time of it's disappearance by Mr. DiMarzo. And in one of Jason's above linked articles, Mr. McMahon even expresses some regret selling the property to Timothy Mellon. It isn't very easy, for me at least, to dismiss 7 siblings who moved to the property in 1948, and who apparently did get to know the rock very well. I know it is not hard to create false memories, and memory is indeed our most fallible mental faculty, I do believe. But I spoke to Brown twice, and leaned toward believing him, if only because his translation and explanation seemed so much more parsimonious then secret bloodlines of Jesus Christ. But there are also inconsistencies that were noted. Such as stating the Hooked X was an accident because the chisel slipped. For some, that might seem a stretch, and might elevate McMahon/Lindsay narratives over the Brown narrative.

Something tells me the supporters of the McMahon's and Brown's may be vocalizing their support for years to come. We will see if there are further twists to come. BTW, and FWIW, when told some questioned his religious affiliation, Everett Brown laughed and said he was "a sinner!"

Gregor

7/12/2014 08:18:58 am

I agree about the photograph issue...though perhaps for the opposite reason. Given the unique nature of the stone, and the seemingly eternal need for parents to have "cute" photos of their kids... one would think that *somewhere* there would be a black-and-white snapshot of a young McMahon or Mellon sitting on "that neat Indian rock", complete with inscriptions (that is, assuming their version is true).

I'd find it less likely for someone hoaxing (at least in the pre-Internet days) to have the foresight (or desire) to photograph themselves perpetrating said hoax. I say this mostly because today there's practically a business built up around hoaxing things (like crop circles advertising computer technology), and given how quickly information (good or bad) can spread in the modern era... it's practically required to have a clear, concise "get out of jail free" card.

In times past, however, it was likely (or at least reasonable) that one's hoax would go no further than the town you were trying to fool anyways, and once you came clean to the town paper or whomever, it would all just blow over.

7/12/2014 11:23:41 am

Gregor, do you have any thoughs on the Ossian controversy, by the way?

Gregor

7/12/2014 04:20:32 pm

To be honest, I really don't know much about the whole Ossian fiasco. From what little I do know, my best guess would be along the lines of "he took a bunch of unrelated Celtic source materials, then claimed it was one giant Gaelic epic".

On the one hand I see nothing "wrong" with that, as many cultures have done the same thing over the millennia... its just that they did it before textual criticism really took off ;) I don't necessarily buy into the "those Scots stole our Irish heritage!" issue, because historically speaking the various Celtic groups shared quite a bit...and to claim that only one variant is "right" per se is, to me, akin to saying that only "Odinn" is correct, and "Wotan" and "Woden" are just stealing Norse heritage! In other words, as a collection of Gaelic-flavored storytelling I think it's just fine (and worth keeping, if only as an example of the same).

On the other hand, for those (including the author) who wish to claim it as authentic "history" or, barring that, genuine Gaelic oral traditions... that's really not defensible. Even if all his sources were 100% real and traceable (which they aren't), he still did a fair amount of literary alchemy to turn them into a patchwork epic...and then translated them into another language. In that regard he is no more a conservator of Celtic histories than J.R.R. Tolkien is for lifting huge swaths of world mythologies (most notably Norse) and turning them into a series of young-adult novels and world war allegories.

7/12/2014 07:17:34 pm

I was thinking of its as a hoax, primarily... And how it fits into your "then-and-now" discussion above... Sure it was much more ambitions than the runestones, but the general sentiment behind them is more or less the same - to glorify one's past at the expense of historical fact...

Gregor

7/13/2014 06:26:56 am

@EP

I see nothing to contest here - and if the only category for this work is "historical fact" then we agree, its a hoax. My only "wiggle room" for it was as an example of cultural flourish. At least some of the sources he drew upon were authentic Gaelic (read: neither "Irish" nor "Scottish") traditions... and so if one is willing to give up the "historically accurate!" (indefensible) position, I don't see harm in letting it live. Otherwise yes, it's another "see how great my hometown / state / region / nation is?!" flop.

7/13/2014 07:57:30 am

You sound like you actually read the thing. What do you think about the writing, by the way?

Historian

7/13/2014 11:25:49 am

I agree, and Mr..McMahon said they occasionally discussed how someone knowledgable should see it. In 50 years, you would expect a rock they obviously were fond of, to be photographed. If they were as fascinated by it as this family seems to profess, including naming it, Hard to believe if they did not once photograph the inscription. I'm reasonably sure I would have. Understanding your point of view much better now, I can understand why you could care less if Brown carved it or not. Because I do not know it's origin with absolute certainty, I prefer to hear a lot more from all 7 of the McMahon's but I prefer on video, with relevant questions, and be able to be my own judge as much as possible. I've been talking past you a lot without realizing the fundamental difference in our starting points. That's clearly my fault. You misunderstood me as well, but we both believe in evidence, I can assure you of that.

Matt

3/29/2016 09:48:26 pm

This is your venue for discrediting Scott's work? Let me know when you get your big boy pants and publish a book or get a degree. Wait, besides your work here on this important forum, have I watched your television show on the HISTORY CHANNEL?

Historian

3/30/2016 07:20:14 am

Actually, I have more degrees then Scott does, in History, not geology. One reason his historical "research" at times has me all but doubling over in laughter at it's failings. That Henrik Williams review of the Hooked X outlines many of his silly mistakes and inaccuracies. Believe me, Scott Wolter is no historian and boy, does it show, lol. TV show? Is that the standard for academic excellence now? Having a TV show? Lol, lol. Have you noticed even the History Network includes a disclaimer now at the beginning of that show? Lol. Scott produces "pop scholarship", and I am afraid that is really not a very high standard. Yep, TV. Entertainment, not scholarship. He's been entertainment, not scholarship, from the very start. But don't pay me any mind. Simply google Henrik Williams and the Hooked X, and also Henrik Williams and the Narragansett Stone. Expose yourself to true scholarship in the subject. No surprise that you were unable to counter any of the objections I raised regarding the quality of Scott's scholarship or the venues he chooses to present his scientific findings. I guess Scott is just really terrified to present his weathering of rock studies to actual geologists. And since Scott is a geologist, that's a shame. It prevents laymen from knowing if Scott is correct in saying his dating technique is actually valid. It denies laymen who are not geologists from knowing what other geologists think,of Scott's studies. They have to take Scott's word, rather then be provided with the opinions of other geologists regarding Scott's claims. A TRUE scientist would submit his claims and findings to a geological journal to be reviewed by his peers. Scott is afraid to do that, because he knows what the result will be. So he appeals instead to popular culture to present his "science". And you, apparently a bold defender of popular culture as the standard of academic excellence, hold up the standard of TV shows and books as proof of his accomplishments? Have you taken a good look at Reality TV??? Lol, it's not exactly highbrow, now is it? Lol, lol. And all anybody really has to know is that Scott's narrative has as it's foundation an hypothesis, a proposition, that can never be proven nor disproven, without the DNA of Jesus Christ and unanimity among scholars that it is the DNA of Jesus Christ. Scott actually said it best when he said "maybe the Da Vinci Code really was the truth". And there it is, proof that Scott is at the point of turning fiction into non fiction. In his own mind, and the minds of his followers who are unable to see through his nonsense. Ever hear of Occam's Razor? Something else you can google and educate yourself on. Scott would have done well to learn of it and apply it himself.

Historian

3/30/2016 08:05:34 am

Just as an aside, since you capitalized the History Network, apparently impressed that his show is on a network with the word "history" in it's title. Dig into the opinions of scholars in history throughout the United States regarding the quality of historical scholarship actually presented on that network. While they have produced some worthwhile fare in the actual subject of history, at the same time with stuff like ancient aliens and America Unearthed, they not only leave history behind, they distort history and promulgate untruths. Research what the director of the museum documenting the Roanoke Colony had to say regarding the behavior of Scott and his crew when filming that episode. Scott duped the man, and the man and his brother actually produced a video themselves describing the shady practices they witnessed. As the museum director discovered, Scott had an agenda to drive, and was not at all interested in the truth where the Dare Stones were concerned. Scott edited out the truth as the museum director attempted to convey to him. Scott's fictional agenda would sell better on his show, so Scott ignored the evidence demonstrating the fraudulent nature of the Dare Stones. Nice. Very ethical behavior. The museum director was so outraged, he and his brother produced a video documenting all of Scott's boneheaded mistakes committed to promote a fictional narrative instead of a truthful narrative. I also know of one prominent state archaeological society who declined to allow Scott's crew to film an episode at their location, because they were well aware of the silly and foolish product that would result, and therefore had no desire to sully the reputation of their society by giving Scott free reign to distort history at their expense.

You promote his presence on the History Network as proof of something it is not, namely good history. As a highly educated historian with several degrees, I know far better when I see entertainment twisting the facts of history to present a fanciful and entertainment-dominant narrative presented to popular culture for it's enjoyment. Nothing wrong with that, until we see folks promoting such garbage as actual historical fact. At that point, being on the History Network is not exactly a badge of honor for accredited historians. Quite the opposite. Next time you put the network name in all caps, in an effort to impress, include an asterisk as well, with the notation
**Historians agree this programming should not be confused with historical truth**. That needs to be added, so the uneducated masses will at least have a heads up that shows like America Unearthed are, whatever else, most certainly not purveyors of historical accuracy. They are fictional narratives pretending to be history. And, as credentialed historians, like myself, understand, that is the very heart and soul of the so-called History Network. Mind you, nothing wrong with entertainment. But what a shame when it is confused with historical truth. Historians nation wide can only shake their heads in dismay at the garbage presented as fact. And the ease with which a geologist specializing in concrete can pull the wool over so many uneducated eyes by pretending to use his "research" to rewrite history.
The Hooked X is loaded with inaccurate facts presented as historical truth, as trite a treatment of history as any I can imagine. A complete joke. But, when presented in the popular press, and presented to the uneducated masses, rather then in an academic venue, where it would be laughed right out of the publisher's office, he can get away with it, and fool many people unfamiliar with the countless mistakes he makes due to his unscientific methodologies of creating a theory and then cherry picking "facts" to support it. Junk Science. Junk History.
The History Network is just fine and dandy with junk history, It sells better, it's all about $$ where TV is concerned. All about $$, not academic excellence. Where $$ is concerned, Scott's fictionalized history suits the History Network. And I can't believe that you, or anyone else, would hold up that network as proof of excellence where the discipline of historical research is concerned. You're quite naive, as are many of Scott's devotees.

Historian

3/30/2016 12:08:12 pm

Rather then continue to trade barbs, which accomplishes nothing, I will leave you with two links, you can copy and paste, should you chose, and you can read essays offering contrary views to your own. Both essays by Henrik Williams. First, a review by Williams of Wolter's book, The Hooked X:

http://www.richardnielsen.org//PDFs/ESOP%20v27%20p139%20Review%20of%20Wolter%20Book%205pp.pdf

Williams is a foremost European runologist, and took our discovery seriously enough to fly to RI and examine the Narragansett Stone first hand. Here is his conclusion:

http://files.webb.uu.se/uploader/267/Narragansett%20Stone%20Report%203.1%20Williams%202014.pdf

Rather then argue with a proponent of Wolter's narrative, better to give you different food for thought. You are free to believe Knights Templar sailed into Narragansett Bay and left a message pertaining to secret biological bloodlines of Jesus Christ. But it is not my fault if 50+ years as an historian tells me his historical research is very shoddy and mistaken.

7/12/2014 06:23:21 am

It's funny how so much internet ink is being spilled over the hearsay claims by some locals, while the conclusions of the scientific experts who examined the stone a few months ago get hardly any mention.

"Rod Mather, a professor of maritime history at the University of Rhode Island, was initially called in by investigators to offer his thoughts and insights on the boulder. In an interview with the Independent last week, he said it was difficult to determine the origins or meaning of the inscriptions but suspects they were made at some point during the late 19th century."

http://www.independentri.com/independents/north_east/article_3f790edb-91b5-5cb5-8a11-1ce509986465.html

Gregor

7/12/2014 08:31:20 am

Agreed. I must laugh, else I should cry.

Historian

7/13/2014 10:24:28 am

And, he continued:

"“Even if we had the money or the time to look into it more and try and get to the bottom of this whole thing, there would still be people that would doubt the findings whatever they might be,” Mather added.

Historian

7/13/2014 11:36:56 am

Dr. Mather is an underwater archaeologist and maritime historian. Department of History at URI. I wonder if anybody other then Mather examined it? I understand his point of view and he connects the runic inscriptions with Scandinavian immigration, but did any examination by anybody lead to any findings? I know when he says "even if we had the time or the money to look into it more", it makes me wonder what time or money might have uncovered. I'd like to hear as much as possible from Mather and any other scientists who might have had reason to examine it. We've heard from one geologist, Wolter. Would have liked to hear opinions of higher credentialed academic geologists at URI.

Will

7/12/2014 07:02:23 am

I think the idea of Scott Wolter suggesting that Brown's religion is motivating his claims is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Despite not finding one shred of conclusive evidence to support his Jesus-Holy Grail-Oreo-Templar Conspiracy he continues to have "faith" he is right. Is Scott Wolter's "faith" somehow superior or more important than whatever faith Brown has within his life?

Watching Scott Wolter champion his faith using aggressive means leads me to believe that HE is the one whose religion/faith is getting in the way of his better judgements / motivations.

How pitiful.

Gregor

7/12/2014 08:20:18 am

Sadly, Wolter is following a *very* long tradition.

spookyparadigm

7/12/2014 08:52:05 am

A fixation on white settlers or natives of America, and negative opinions of the Catholic church, have clearly never gone together in American history. Ever. Of course.

Zach

7/12/2014 07:40:15 am

How can any state allow Scott Wolter to take a sample from anything knowing his lack of credentials and just completely ludicrous theories? I can't wait for the day that his name is out of the news and his show is off the air.

Gregor

7/12/2014 08:26:23 am

The same way a large portion of the US states "lost" their moon rock samples provided to them by the Federal government: they're large, ungainly, mostly inept bureaucracies that are as much beholden to the personalities of the person in charge (at the time) as any sort of regulation or policy.

In this instance, all it would take is a bit of cash from the studio and a State Archaeologist who's already of a mind to believe this stuff (or just thinks he'll rake in tourist dollars for the state) to get a permit and shave off a bit of the rock for someone to "examine".

Besides, there's obviously a grading scale of just how "important" a site is... if only one based on how much heat a violation is likely to bring down. As was noted during the Wolter/Idiots/PreColumbian Arrowhead debacle, it's a game of judging how big a problem it would be vs. how much time & effort it would take to police it.

As for him being off the air... I don't know, Wolter is an "old favorite" of History Channel...he was mucking around with his fool's theories long before America Unearthed was on the air.

7/12/2014 11:12:10 am

Narragansett Runestone is so "important" that the scientists examining it after its recovery didn't think it was worth it to conduct damaging tests to determine the date of the inscription, while the authorities (after the scientists got bored with it) were planning to install it in a public park.

Clearly, They are doing their best to suppress the Truth! :)

Historian

7/13/2014 11:47:34 am

Amen, brother. The barbarians are at the gates.

7/12/2014 02:48:37 pm

one point still stands: Brown has changed elements of his story- the others who are refuting it, have not.

Gregor

7/12/2014 04:26:46 pm

True, but that presupposes that only the correct may have steadfast conviction. Besides, it's not so much an issue of Brown vs. The Others - at least to me - as it is "Science Says No" vs. The Others, with Brown "confessing" as the culprit. That is, I don't see Brown's confession as evidence that the stone was hoaxed - rather, there's already been evidence provided that the stone was hoaxed (and a lack of evidence that sea-faring Icelandic Templars landed, carved the stone, then literally disappeared in every sense of the word)...he wants to be the hoaxer (immaterial) and the others are attempting to discredit the "hoaxed" status by discrediting Brown.

Historian

7/13/2014 10:19:39 am

OK, and now I understand you better. I'm not trying to discredit a hoaxed status by questioning Brown's story, but simply trying not to dismiss the possibility he isn't a hoaxer. He himself said it "can only be a hoax if there is intent to deceive" and he said he was just a kid playing Vikings and Indians, BTW. So, from his perspective, he didn't think it should be called a hoax, FWIW. As I've tried to explain below, it wasn't about who or when regarding the stone. I didn't want to see the family's narrative discounted because for some it would spoil the fun of "it's a fake". I understand if that's not even an issue for you, whether I agree with you or not. I have not made up my mind, so we are worlds apart, but at least I do understand where you are coming from now.

Kal

7/12/2014 06:04:27 pm

Both of those rune stones are fake, either to get tourists or for some other con.

That said, there is ample evidence of colonial Viking settlements and it's not a conspiracy at all. It's not like anyone really held back this notion at all. Columbus found people here. Other people had been here. No conspiracy. Settlers came here and carved on rocks. Doesn't mean there was a grant Templar whatever. Even that whole founding father Freemason thing is like, yeah, so what? Some of them were masons, as a lot of people were in that part of the US. As for funny stone carvings, it could very well have been done later. As for Indian Rock...different rock! A little actual research into the history of that part of the east coast would reveal that, but the conspiracy sooth sayers would like it to appear that there's some big mystery about it. It is still amusing that there is so much debate over all of this, and that some of those stones have allegedly vanished, which means they never existed, or were exaggerated, one would guess. Rational thinking and conspiracy do not go together though. Note that this is an opinion from a non expert.

william smith

7/13/2014 01:15:26 am

Brown and Wolter may be a fake, however the hooked X is not. Brown may have slipped his chisel as he said and then the carver of the Kensington rune stone slipped his chisel 11 times. The hooked x was used by Christopher Columbus and was in use in Portugal for an abbreviation of Christ.

Historian

7/13/2014 02:11:43 am

EP wrote:

"@ Historian: Pretty much every serious researcher whose work requires examining people's testimonies must take account of the biases they are likely to have (as suggested by countless studies in psychology, etc.). This includes things like parental love, peer pressure, and, yes, local pride. Ignoring such things deservedly devalues one's work in the eyes of others."

Yet, I specifically said it should be judged on a case by case basis. Where did I say it should be ignored? Here is a near 30 year old memory of the rock, still intact:

-Saturday, April 7, 1985. Broke out topographic map and compared to quahogger's tip which described location from the water, not the land.
-called an associate to see if he wanted to join me on the search he did.
-Noticed entrance to Scalibrini Villa and realized this might be our best access point to the shore.
-Spoke with the head of the order. He granted permission. Head of grounds crew was present. He told us he remembered seeing a stone that fit my description on the shore "about 20 years ago"(exact words)
-Ground chief gave us directions
-After finding the stone, I sat on it, with a huge s**t eating grin on my face while my associate filmed me. I remember that s**t eating grin! even though I've never seen my associate's film.
-A fisherman walked by the two of us, walking north to south, and said, exact words: "Looking at the funny rock,,huh?". More evidence that the inscription was known by some. He was likely walking home, but did not not interview him.

Not bad for near 30 years. But not 60-70. Local pride angle?? I couldn't write that Neara article fast enough. I couldn't give a talk at a general Neara meeting soon enough! We had found a Norse inscription in my beloved RI, and it even had the hooked X!!

As noted earlier, you would really be hard pressed to find a better living exponent of "local pride" then myself. Does not mean my memory must be flawed, does not mean I cannot be objective; does not mean I can no longer use my discriminating intelligence to address the mystery just because it would be wonderful to say "we have a Medieval inscription in RI". I don't care how much I love plugging my home state. I don't let it fog my memory.

Regarding the McMahon clan. All I am saying is that dismissing their memories of childhood at the rock(3 of the siblings have so testified, other 4 are said to agree) requires(IF we believe Brown that is) that we say their childhood memories of calling it Indian Rock because of the carvings(what shore at that point looked like in 48 I don't know; in 85, it was the only sizable rock on that section of shore) actually cannot date until they were adults. Mrs. Lindsay's memory of calling it Indian Rock as a child and seeing the rock at age 11 in 1948 cannot have actually happened until she was at least age 27. And so the nickname was given to the stone when the children were adults, not children. The earliest they could have seen the inscriptions was 1964, at which time, and for an indeterminate, but likely lengthy, amount of time after the carving date of summer 64, the inscription is going to appear quite fresh(that HAS to be the case, photos not required. Just look at the scratches made when stone was dumped to see what a non-patinated surface looks like on the specific stone) So, all their childhood memories MUST be false, maybe even because of local pride, the existence of which cannot be tested in a lab, and they could not have seen any change in the stone, such as an inscription, until they were no longer children. And none of the 7 remember this at all. They all have "local pride" and therefore, we just simply disregard their testimony in it's entirety.

The above is something my own approach finds quite arbitrary. I never said disregard where a witness may be coming from. But to apply a simplistic formula, as if "local pride" had an equation we could use to see to what degree local pride exists in an individual, is something that strikes me as non scientific entirely.

I got tons of local pride. I made the rock known outside the locals..and I'm as amenable to a modern era origin for the inscription as anyone is. Where's my prideful bias? Where is it??

Historian

7/13/2014 02:22:50 am

I should have added that, with the exception of the actual date, my 29 year old account above is entirely from memory, including exact quotes. And I don't regard myself as having a very good memory at all at this point in my life. I do not believe the testimony of the 7 siblings of the family that "owned" the stone for over 50 years can be so easily tossed out. Who but they could possibly have been as familiar with it? Who would have seen it more often then anybody else? How can these folks just be dismissed? In tracking local knowledge, and seeing how far back memory goes among locals, are we suggesting historical research does not in fact begin right there at Pojac Point. I'm a trained historian. Retired, but credentialed. I know that's where you start, locally! Any diaries from area residents mention the "funny stone", etc., etc., etc For which reason I mentioned the family that owned the property from 1840-c.1940 made no mention of the rock, according to NK Town Historian Tim Cranston. That's pretty relevant. I for one cannot so easily dismiss testimony from the family who knew the rock better then anyone until I came along and wrote about the stone. To do so would be foolish, IMHO. And a I certainly consider myself a serious researcher.

Historian

7/13/2014 02:45:36 am

I believe "serious" researchers would interview the McMahon clan at length, and not quickly dismiss them as victims of "local pride" based on the assumption local pride clouds their opinions and statements, and we can somehow determine that by the few quotes provided and without talking to them further. In fact, any historian should know the McMahon's are exactly where you begin, with the family that owned the section of shore (above the high tide line) upon which the stone rested. The family that was more familiar with the stone then anyone else I can think of off the top of my head. Any serious researcher would follow up in depth with each and every member of that family. IMHO, a serious researcher would not conclude, at this point, "local pride might be in play here. Nothing to see here. Dismiss them".
Huh???

Gregor

7/13/2014 06:59:30 am

When we can go visit you on April 7, 1985... your claims ("memories") will be verifiable and open to scientific examination. As it stands your memories are neither "right" nor "wrong"...they cannot be. What they are is part of the fabric that makes you the person you are today. They are not, however, data that can be scrutinized and expounded as incontrovertible proof of anything.

I think another issue is that you seem to differentiate "serious researcher" from "scientist". Are you looking for anthropological data on the folklore and mythos of New England? A Rhode Island conservator of folk history? Or are you trying to prove that an inscription is both real and valid... namely, that Icelandic Vikings sailed south (presumably from the confirmed site in Canada?), landed at Rhode Island, which was more fertile, had better resources, sea access, etc.... then carved a single stone and left forever (leaving *no* trace behind)?

The problem with family lineage is that "what Pops said" becomes gospel truth. Even if the family's ultimate Patriarch or Matriarch was a first-hand witness to something... everyone after that is, at best, a second-to-Nth-hand witness. They don't report their own unique investigations and extrapolations, they tell you what their mom told them, which is what her dad told her, etc. etc. All of this data is *interesting*, but not *with merit*. You get a really good story, and nothing else.

Now, one of these families comes out and shows a 900 year old sword hilt? A set of suitably ancient chisels? The State Archaeologist dredges the beach and finds a series of layed-stone foundations? Now you're cooking with gas! Until then, it's fireside chats.

Lastly, you're crafting a straw man argument in your closing passage... is that something a "serious researcher" does? It's not merely a matter of "oh, its local pride, nothing to see here!". Its a matter of individuals (including you, apparently?) making an extraordinary claim ("Vikings landed at Rhode Island 600-800 years ago!") with nothing but the sworn affidavits of memories over a matter of local pride and one stone whose inscription has a slew of issues. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"...and none has been forthcoming. I have no vested interest in Rhode Island... I've never even been there. Nor do I have an issue with Vikings...hell, if I go back far enough they're my ancestors, and it'd be pretty freaking badass to find out that they were tooling around in the Americas while the rest of Europe was trying to figure out campfires. My "problem" is that I require evidence before I believe a story, a memory, a claim - and there's none of *that* here.

So, I'm sorry if this has felt like a personal attack on you (or the things you believe in) - my only point is that at best, such folklore "investigations" will be what *fleshes out* the proof, not the proof itself.

Mark L

7/15/2014 01:06:36 am

Seems strange you've never been remotely bothered about the video of yourself at a famous artifact.

Historian

7/13/2014 03:40:18 am

Wordy guy, ain't I? Lol. I believe on the basis of the few quotes and description given, to judge that the McMahon clan "fails the local pride test" is flat out non scientific. There is no formula to determine degree of local pride present. Is there a 30 item questionnaire that witnesses must fill out before interviews to determine degree of local pride. Like it or not, historical research, determining what is the earliest date that can be found for anybody mentioning the inscription, begins at Pojac Point. Not the library. Each member of that clan should, if possible, be taped at length and questioned at length, and that can all be on one tape/transcript for future generations of researchers. They do not fail a "local pride test" at all, since that is an unproven possibility, not a proven point at all. Are we really going to say when trying to trace the inscription back in time that we can just not take seriously testimony of the family who owned the land in front of which( and if any part of the stone was above the high tide line in 48 or later, they may have legally owned it briefly) the rock lay exposed for 50 years? I would certainly question the training of any historian who adopted that conclusion at this stage of the Brown/McMahon discrepancies problem that now clearly exists. You cannot apply a "local pride colors their testimony" indiscriminately. At the very least, follow up in depth interviews of all 7 are necessary. Anybody who says "that's no longer needed" is really saying we can throw out potentially valuable information because these folks were just too attached to this rock somehow, and we can just assume that is the case without any actual proof that that is the case.

I hope I'm off my soapbox, but with me you never know.....

7/13/2014 04:37:39 am

Historian-your comments, thought process is very refreshing compared to quickly put together newspaper article Jason revisted here. What you propose takes time, but well worth the effort to get it right. But what will happen to all this effort? It is hard to counter quick, non researched blitz writers/newspaper writers.

Historian

7/13/2014 05:04:20 am

JJ, I anticipate an in depth article on the entire subject from a local reporter down the line, but don't have a timetable. Not that it will solve the mystery of "who and when", but hopefully it will be a bit more balanced.

Kent Spottswood link

7/13/2014 05:30:06 am

As the first to interview Everett Brown and publicize his story from the summer of 1964, I would like to add a few observations that temper some of the points brought up here.

First, there are few academics who dare to claim they can date an inscription beyond an initial timeframe. Historian above shows caution in addressing patina and nothing more, and patina on Rhode Island sandstone would likely lose distinctive characteristics quickly, especially when constantly bathed by the tides. There appears to be nothing geological about the inscription that would exclude a 1964 origin.

Second, in neither of my two interviews with Brown over a five-week period did he mention the "Hooked X" by name. In the first interview he told me he messed up the "N." He was not precise in his memories about each of the runes and was clearly not referring to any diagrams or photos while talking to me. He might have told subsequent interviewers a slightly different story, especially if they planted the idea of the "hooked X" in their questions. I found the alleged inconsistency in Brown's testimony to be consistent with 50-year-old memories of summer vacation. He says there was no intention of hoax and his story backs that up.

That nonsense that the hooked X wouldn't have been familiar to a 13-year-old in 1964? Well, it's mighty similar to a "nyd" in Hick's Thesaurus from 1705, and certainly would have appeared in more familiar form in any of the many books on the Kensington Stone published before 1964.

For me, the biggest impediment to accepting Brown's story is the testimony of others who lived there. However, given the loud, long history of residents, historians, publicists. and dozens of authors banging the drum for Viking visits to Rhode Island, it seems remarkable to me that, first, the people who owned and lived at Pojac Point hadn't shared the rock with historical and preservation interests at some time before 1964; and second, the rock, standing alone at the edge of the sea, should have been overlooked for so long.

A recent geologist's report states the rock was likely buried before 1939, and this has been cited as a reason for the rock's omission from earlier catalogues of inscribed rocks in Rhode Island. I would think the more likely reason for the rock's omission is because it wasn't carved before 1939.

Again, the undetailed testimony of others stands against the detailed but slightly indeterminate testimony of Mr. Brown. For Pojac Point residents, it was known as Indian Rock - just like many standalone rocks in southern New England without carvings. As others have noted here, no one can be declared the winner of that debate without documentary proof there were runes on the stone before 1964.

For the record, I declare under oath that I was not visited by minions from the Vatican looking to suppress the Templars' mission. I will even sign an affidavit to that effect. In runes, if need be.

Historian

7/13/2014 07:42:06 am

Seems more likely the McMahon clan would have photos, living on site for many years. I believe, that had it been me living there, calling it Indian Rock and wondering if maybe somebody knowledgable should see it some time, the latter point as testified to by Mr. McMahon, then I would have taken photos. At least once, if it caught my fancy enough to wonder about it among family members now and then, I would have photographed it. That's me. But I honestly think it should be anyone, given the degree of interest in the rock as testified to by this family.

Historian

7/13/2014 06:45:08 am

Hi Kent. Appreciate your points of view. The 2012 coastal geologist report said the stone might have been buried. The aerial photo overlays show it was on land at that time, but what was interpreted as likely over wash from the 1938 hurricane extends over the area where the rock might otherwise been visible and beyond it about 8 feet further westward. So you can't really tell from the 39 photograph if buried or not. Also, Mr. McMahon mentions in one of the articles that occasionally the family said it would be good to get someone with knowledge to see the inscription. In my first interview with Everett Brown he told me he chose a different character for the letter A in the second line from the character he chose to use as A in the first line because his family was in a hurry and he felt that character would expend less time. No mention of a chisel slipping to create an un intended Hooked X(he did not use that term at any time with myself either). That was mentioned the second time I spoke with him. Quite possible the two do not actually represent different versions in fact, depending on how you interpret it, but it still struck me as "cosmically improbable"(just kidding but reaching for what I mean), in the sense of inadvertently creating a character resembling exactly the most(?), or one of the most, controversial characters on both the Kensington Stone and Spirit Pond Stones. Personally, I took to Everett Brown, and shared a few laughs with him. I told him, "I believe you, Everett", to which he simply said "thank you" after our first conversation. And for the very same reasons you described on your blog. At this point, we may not actually have detailed accounts from the McMahons yet. In the sense that all 7 siblings could possibly be interviewed in depth. It may not be quite fair, as yet, in other words to say undetailed testimony stands against detailed testimony. What little that is said in the articles is little, and 3 of 7 siblings. So maybe we have yet to get to the point of being in the best position to fairly compare testimony.

Needless to say, even if the script was present in 1948, it does not therefore mean it was present in 1938, or the 14th century. It would simply mean the earliest it could have appeared is before the McMahon's bought the property in 1948.

Historian

7/13/2014 07:26:44 am

Kent, I should say that I basically agree with you that the appearance of the stone does not seem to exclude an origin 50 years ago. You are probably right that the fresh look probably would not last that long after carving, before it began to resemble the older patinated surface in color. And as a soft sedimentary stone, the water will soften the lines quicker then some other rock types. Interesting that when the head groundskeeper at Scalibrinni told me had seen a rock matching my description "about 20 years ago", he was saying "about 1965". Which proves nothing of course, but slightly more interesting now.

Historian

7/13/2014 08:08:14 am

Gregor wrote:

"Lastly, you're crafting a straw man argument in your closing passage... is that something a "serious researcher" does? It's not merely a matter of "oh, its local pride, nothing to see here!". Its a matter of individuals (including you, apparently?) making an extraordinary claim ("Vikings landed at Rhode Island 600-800 years ago!") with nothing but the sworn affidavits of memories over a matter of local pride and one stone whose inscription has a slew of issues. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"...and none has been forthcoming. I have no vested interest in Rhode Island... I've never even been there. Nor do I have an issue with Vikings...hell, if I go back far enough they're my ancestors, and it'd be pretty freaking badass to find out that they were tooling around in the Americas while the rest of Europe was trying to figure out campfires. My "problem" is that I require evidence before I believe a story, a memory, a claim - and there's none of *that* here."

Well, if you really are interested in my personal opinion, my wager, as it were, has long been on late 19th-early 20th century. As I said elsewhere, even if the inscription were present in 1948, it does not mean it was present in 1938 or the 14th century. I was trying to keep my personal opinion regarding it's "true" origin, since it can only be an opinion out of the conversation, actually. Your decision to interpret this in the fashion you have seems to be based on unwarranted assumptions. I have long "felt" it is most likely modern era, but who cares? You see what happens when you assume.

Historian

7/13/2014 08:18:45 am

Gregor wrote:

"I think another issue is that you seem to differentiate "serious researcher" from "scientist". Are you looking for anthropological data on the folklore and mythos of New England? A Rhode Island conservator of folk history? Or are you trying to prove that an inscription is both real and valid... namely, that Icelandic Vikings sailed south (presumably from the confirmed site in Canada?), landed at Rhode Island, which was more fertile, had better resources, sea access, etc.... then carved a single stone and left forever (leaving *no* trace behind)?

If you read all my comments, I avoided promoting an "exotic" interpretation anywhere. And that's because I don't subscribe to one. At least not stuff I find ludicrous. Personally. This was not about that, however. For me it was about weighing the two competing narratives. The McMahon narrative does not address the issue of true origin at all. The testimony that while it was on land, pre-1940, there was no record of an inscribed rock by the family that owned it from 1840-c.1940 could be taken to support the non existence of an inscription before the stone ended up in the inter-tidal zone! Please do not confuse me, sir, with a Norse apologist. Lol. I kept my personal opinion out of it until you chose to bring it up. This was about competing narratives, not whether or not the inscription was carved by the Norse or Icelanders.

Historian

7/13/2014 08:41:03 am

Accepting the McMahon narrative as possibly valid, as worth recording in detail, has no bearing whatsoever on the question: Is this inscription "ancient"?. The inscriptions possible existence as "early" as 1948 has nothing to do with anything prior to that date. The stone could have been without inscription in 1947! All we know about the stone at a date earlier is that it was on land in 1939, a little less then 10 feet above sea level. The coast has been eroded fairly rapidly in the decades since. Sometime after 1939, the stone must have eroded, slowly or by storm, into the intertidal zone, where it reposed until removed. There is no reason that I know of to exclude the possibility of a carving post 1939. If above ground when it was on land, on a 19th century farm, and the inscription was never noted, that may be seen as telling by some. Understand I am quite objective. I try very hard. You have apparently mistook my unwillingness to toss out "witnesses" as an attempt to promote a Norse or other exotic hypothesis, when, in fact, it is no such thing. Nor have I promoted such anywhere in my comments. And we should all realize, as I'm sure we do, that the outcome we want should be the outcome we most insist does not exclude any potential evidence, the outcome we want deserves extra scrutiny if we harbour an outcome at all. Sometimes we lean, I know I lean sometimes. Lol. If McMahon's testimony is rejected because the other testimony allows us to say "aha, fake!", well, that's when it's best to make sure we don't make too short work of considering the outcome that might take away the "aha, fake" moment.

Historian

7/14/2014 06:06:35 am

Gregor wrote:
"I think another issue is that you seem to differentiate "serious researcher" from "scientist". Are you looking for anthropological data on the folklore and mythos of New England? A Rhode Island conservator of folk history? Or are you trying to prove that an inscription is both real and valid... namely, that Icelandic Vikings sailed south (presumably from the confirmed site in Canada?), landed at Rhode Island, which was more fertile, had better resources, sea access, etc.... then carved a single stone and left forever (leaving *no* trace behind)?

One of the problems I do have with this particular argument is I would not really expect to find a trace of a short duration exploratory party in Narragansett Bay. Verrazzano spent two weeks in Narragansett Bay. Has any trace every been found of that two week visit? No. Why expect any from a brief Norse visit if such occurred? On the other hand, in fairness, I really would not expect an inscrutable inscription to be left behind either.

Historian

7/14/2014 07:49:01 am

People have inhabited the Narragansett Bay region for more then 12,000 years. You could sail a half dozen Viking ships in Narragansett Bay, with a few dozen Norse aboard, have them spend a month here, and require an extraordinary stroke of luck to find a single trace of such a month long sojourn out of 12,000 years of occupation. No reason to believe a trace would ever be found.

Americanegro

11/14/2017 02:54:47 pm

"it'd be pretty freaking badass to find out that they were tooling around in the Americas while the rest of Europe was trying to figure out campfires."

Yet you claim to be a historian? You might want to look up Rome. It was kind of a big thing.

Historian

11/14/2017 03:53:21 pm

Are you quoting me in those quotation marks? Because those are Gregor's words, not mine. It's pretty clear if you read the comments. This conversation was a long time ago, and the numerous paragraph indentations can make it tough to know if you're addressing me or Gregor. At any rate, figuring out campfires happened in a really deep past, well before Norse or Romans. But, maybe you were addressing Gregor, and not me, I'm not certain at this point. But, regardless, the quote you render belongs to Gregor, not myself. Yeah, in re-reading everything, it does look like you confused words written by Gregor as being words I wrote. You're mistaken on that score.

Historian

11/14/2017 04:04:08 pm

Did you not see "Gregor wrote:" followed by the quote "it'd be pretty freaking badass, etc."? Your mistaking his words as mine, ya damn fool. In a thread more then three years old, lol. What a numbskull, lol....

A.H.

7/13/2014 08:31:02 am

Great discussion, but all of you missed the most important point in all of this, BROWN CANNOT EVEN PROVE HE WAS THERE, LET ALONE HAVE CHISELED THIS INSCRIPTION from what I read here! The burden of proof is on HIM. PROVE YOU WERE THERE, Mr. BROWN, then maybe someone will listen politely before throwing you under the bus!

7/13/2014 08:39:20 am

@ Historian: "Where did I say it should be ignored?"

It's very hard to tell what you're trying to say because your writing is absolutely awful. I'm not even trying to be mean or to attack you. You really can't blame people for not following when you write the way you do.

Historian

7/13/2014 08:48:30 am

EP, I don't hang out on this blog very often, so I'm not even sure if your comment is your sense of humor, or problematic. But if you can't follow my erudite and easily understandable writing style, well there's really nothing I can do for you. Unless EP is EP Grondine, then I can understand.

7/13/2014 08:55:48 am

No joke. Would you like me to give you a few examples of what I'm talking about?

Historian

7/13/2014 09:06:02 am

Gregor wrote:
"When we can go visit you on April 7, 1985... your claims ("memories") will be verifiable and open to scientific examination. As it stands your memories are neither "right" nor "wrong"...they cannot be. What they are is part of the fabric that makes you the person you are today. They are not, however, data that can be scrutinized and expounded as incontrovertible proof of anything."

Nor have I offered them as incontrovertible proof of anything at all. Merely pointing out I can provide detailed description of my first visit to the rock 29 years ago. If I'm alive in 30 years, bet I still can! Of course, when you get reminders like this 30 years later, those memories always surface anyway. But of course you don't have to believe. I documented the occasion. The only relevant item today is the groundkeeper's recollection.

Historian

7/13/2014 09:15:34 am

EP wrote:

No joke. Would you like me to give you a few examples of what I'm talking about?

Probably would make more sense if you simply debated a point, but of course you can do as you please. I've gotten all the points across that I intended I get across, and have read the other points of view. I've cleared up the misunderstanding Gregor may have had, mistaking me for a Norse enthusiast, I hope amicably. And I'm pooped. Been discussing the issue all day with various people. Any typos or missed commas are my fault. However, I have no doubt I made my points clear enough, so, do as you please, but I feel no further personal need to respond. I also know I am an excellent writer, EP, so actually, nah, not in the least bit interested.

Americanegro

11/14/2017 03:16:54 pm

Excellent writers

use

paragraphs.

Historian

11/14/2017 03:57:02 pm

But not trolls like yourself....

Historian

11/15/2017 12:41:17 pm

The Narragansett Stone is on permanent display in Wickford, RI. Since last year. You can visit it and be your own judge. The photos I took in 1985 are part of the signage at the location. I'm glad it was recovered and put on permanent public display. I have long felt it was rendered in the modern era, but I have no solid evidence to prove any theory. But the stone has had an interesting journey and there's nothing wrong with giving it a permanent home.

Historian

7/13/2014 04:24:16 pm

Gregor wrote:
"I do admit that I think the stone's inscriptions are fake, and therefore am disinclined to believe local tales to the contrary based on (fallible) memories and nothing more. As for Brown's story... as I noted with the photograph comment, I feel it's unlikely to ever have genuine proof that Brown is the culprit. What we have is plausibility, and to decide which has more..."

But, you see, the local tales in this case may contradict Brown, but they are not automatically contrary to the stone being fake at all. You've already decided you have seen enough evidence to know it is fake. All McMahon's account does, if accurate, is place the inscription's creation pre-1948. I don't know who's been arguing that McMahon's account makes the stone more likely genuine, but it hasn't been me. I think each of the 7 siblings could be interviewed and questioned in depth on camera for the record. And I'd like to be able to judge for myself. I can't hold up the suggestion of other motivations in such testimony as a "law of nature." I can at least have the opportunity to judge for myself with a complete testimony in this particular family's case and not just take someone's word for it that it is all but tantamount to a law of nature that a I cannot possibly learn something from the resulting tape/transcript. And I don't see anything about their narrative that supports any fanciful theory that has been applied to the inscription. It puts the inscription on site 16 years earlier then 1964. In relation to the fanciful theories, so what? For anyone certain that the stone is a fake, the only going that changes is the date it was carved.
They are only testifying to when they first saw the inscription; they are not ending their quotes with "therefore, Scott Wolter must be right". But that can be delved into in an in depth interview. You may be right in this instance where memory/family/conformity is concerned, but I'm not going to elevate it to a law of nature, so inviolable that I almost need not listen at all. I would like to be my own judge. I am not looking to salvage the possible authenticity of this stone. Different folks will judge the relative plausibility of these narratives through their own filters. We can be pretty sure of that, but my focus here was very narrow. Unlike yourself, I had not decided the stone was fake with 100% certainty, and this actually had nothing to do more then determining plausibility to me. That the stone is a fake doesn't move off the table if the McMahon's are plausible.

Historian

7/13/2014 04:33:47 pm

EP, for your sake, in the above, "the only going that changes" should read "the only thing that changes." Sometimes the iPad does what it feels like doing, and sometimes I miss it.....

Historian

7/14/2014 02:35:37 am

Steve DiMarzo contacted the McMahon family and 90 year old Jane Goodhue, long time neighbor of the McMahon's at Pojac. Steve did so to discredit Brown. And Steve can not be confused with anybody but a rabid supporter of Wolter's "theories". If I were the McMahon's and believed Brown was wrong, I would state my memories as well, to set the record straight as I see it. . If they are doing so in part because they want to back DiMarzo/Wolter, that's what an in depth pointed questions interview can address. The opportunity only exists for a finite time and there's nothing wrong with doing that. Regardless of all the potential biases that can be present, it's worth it, and good questioning can uncover those biases.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

7/13/2014 05:10:22 pm

The whole bit reminds me of Dr. Peter Venkman … who went to check out Ms. Dana Barrett's Apartment … himself …

He looked at the eggs on the counter and opened the door to the fridge and looked inside … He used the technical equipment at his disposal ...

Only Me

7/13/2014 07:05:34 pm

[Dana has described seeing a terror dog in her refrigerator]

Dr. Peter Venkman: Generally you don't see that kind of behavior in a major appliance.

Gregor

7/13/2014 07:11:16 pm

How does the fact that Venkman wanted to bang Dana fit into the analogy?

Rev. Phil Gotsch

7/14/2014 01:47:05 am

Dana: "Are you sure you're using that thing right?"

Dr. Venkman: "Well, I think so. I'm just not getting any readings. I'm sure there's no animals in there."

Historian

7/14/2014 02:57:44 am

I have not posted to this blog and subject with the purpose of using the McMahon family testimony as a way of boosting Wolter's "theories", as a way of keeping authenticity on the table. All one need to s read runologist Henrik Williams pointed review of the Hooked X to understand why responsible researchers roll their eyes, throw their hands in the air, and, as Gregor suggested, laugh since it beats crying. Indeed! Here is some 100% speculation: if the stone was buried in the ground landward earlier then 1939, or was visible but without an inscription above ground, with the owning family not mentioning it through 100 years of ownership, and was in the intertidal zone by 1948, then perhaps the inscription was rendered between 1940-1948, when the stone has finally eroded out onto the intertidal zone. At any rate, delving into the McMahon family recollections in detail, and asking them to search for photos one would reasonable expect would exist, given decades of interest expressed by this family, is not in the interest of boosting authenticity at all. It really does no such thing anyway, even if the family and DiMarzo believe it does.

Gunn link

7/14/2014 06:26:03 am

This reminds me of going way back to the beginnings of the Mormon faith to find statements from citizens of the time who were united in their belief about plagiarism being the very base of the new religion. Anyone who cares to delve into that fiasco will quickly learn that there is a history involving statements discrediting visits by angels, gold tablets, etc., in favor of beholding purposeful plagiarism and deception. Brown is nothing more than a plagiarist, too, by comparison. The rock's inscription is genuine, going back to medieval times...at least as much as the Newport Tower and the KRS go back to medieval times, in my viewpoint. Nice try, skeptics.

In this regard, and thankfully on-subject, I have a new angle to propose after thinking about the far inland oceanic waterways the last few months. Continually thinking about these things and using a bit of logic can sometimes lead to new considerations.

I propose that the hooked X in Europe is real, going back to medieval times, and I propose that the artifacts in America having hooked X's on them are genuine, as genuine as any hooked X's found in Europe, whether from Portugal or Scandinavia. I propose that Iceland and Greenland were familiar with the hooked X, and also that they were familiar with using stoneholes in rocks. So far, then, history is on my side.

Now consider the dozens of European-style (hand chiseled, triangulated) stoneholes to be found where two oceanic inland waterways converge not far from where the KRS was placed...just west, across the MN border into SD. Here we might fight evidence of Greenlanders coming south, in a time-frame perhaps a dozen years before the date on the KRS, 1362.

I propose that the waterway through Hudson Bay down to this SD/MN location was known about by the 1300's Greenlanders. I further propose that the "lost" Greenlanders slowly became part-and-parcel of the Mandans, since at one time thousands of Native American Mandans carried Scandinavian DNA, hundreds of years later. (Evidence of major breeding.)

So then, perhaps a dozen years after the Greenlanders came south to mark up the Whetstone River area of SD (in my proposal), the KRS party came to explore and appraise land by traveling up the Chippewa River.

But here is a major difference in my newest proposal: Those marking the landscape around the Whetstone River area most likely came down from the northern oceanic waterway of Hudson Bay while the KRS party most likely came by way of the Great Lakes (then basically the MN River). This route also goes on to converge at or near the Whetstone River area.

So, I'm proposing that Scandinavians of pre-Columbus Iceland, Greenland (and America) knew about the far inland oceanic waterway convergence area of the Whetstone River area, and that certain entities knew about the use of the hooked X runic character for communicating back then, too, whether of educated monks or post-Templar remnants...or "lost" Greenlanders who became Mandans, or whatever.

Yes, faithful readers, I am proposing the pre-Columbus use of runestones, hooked-X's, metal weapons and an overabundance of unblasted, aged, triangulated stoneholes right here in America, yes, representing failed land-uptaking attempts well before the Impostor Columbus showed up, appearing somewhat lost. But I can easily forgive him, since he was more than likely a sort of post-Templar remnant himself.

Bottom Line: The Narragansett Runestone is probably as genuine as the other artifacts containing hooked-X's found here in America, whether skeptics here like it or not. Nice try, though.

7/14/2014 06:32:58 am

Columbus was an Impostor? An Impostor *what*?

Gunn

7/14/2014 06:43:26 am

...an impostor discoverer of known lands, yes, hopelessly lost. A "Christopher-come-lately," one might even say.

Only Me

7/14/2014 10:45:26 am

So, you're still refining your hypothesis. That's good. However, I would exercise caution using the following language: "Nice try, skeptics...So far, then, history is on my side....whether skeptics here like it or not...Nice try, though." This is NOT an attack, just some hopefully constructive criticism to help you further refine your hypothesis.

Your comment uses "I propose", "might", "perhaps", "most likely" and "probably". This is expected, as you've admitted that most of your hypothesis is founded on speculation, and might I add, more than a little assumption.

You can't say [at one time thousands of Native American Mandans carried Scandinavian DNA, hundreds of years later. (Evidence of major breeding.)] Where is the DNA study that proves this conclusively? When did the study take place? When were the results published? This is one example why so many readers have had a problem with your reasoning. You make a conclusion based on an assumption [the "lost" Greenlanders slowly became part-and-parcel of the Mandans] without strong evidence to support the conclusion.

You also can't call Columbus an impostor, as the man is not responsible for how historians have presented him. There is already enough controversy surrounding his nationality; trying to tie him to post-Templar activities or membership is really taking advantage of the fact he chose to hide his past for his own reasons. I mean, what's next? Someone needs to cough up more than a flourish of penmanship in his signature as proof of Templar/post-Templar connections.

The rest of your hypothesis- with the exception that artifacts marked with the hooked-X are probably genuine- I concede as possible.

By the way, have you discovered what the metal artifact you found actually is?

Historian

7/15/2014 02:31:56 am

Gunn, without archaeological evidence to support such speculation, it's speculation alone. A story. Just as The Hooked X is in the genre of faction: a fictional account written as if it were fact. Flesh out your speculation into a book, and you have another example of faction, IMHO. Mooring holes and questionable inscriptions do not cut it. A grand scheme has been crafted involving the Smithsonian and academia suppressing the truths of American history. It is an example of the revisioning of history at the hands and behest of popular culture. Some wish to place the mysteries of history into the arena of pop culture to find the answers. But that's ridiculous. You don't come down with a mysterious illness, and then proceed to gather the neighborhood together to play "why am I sick? What might it be"?
You see a doctor(if it helps is another question). Likewise, someone like Wolter has absolutely no training in the discipline of History and relies on his own uneducated misinterpretations to completely rewrite history, nonetheless. With a B.S. In Geology as his credentials. And then proceeds to develop "attitude" when all that he lacks, including publishing in peer review, is brought to his attention. You're developing a nice story line, just don't expect anyone to consider it rigorous research.

Gunn link

7/15/2014 08:10:37 am

Only Me, maybe the metal object is "Templar Treasure," in the words of William Mann: medieval iron, in the form of a suitable wilderness companion. Or, maybe its something from Olof's blacksmithing days. It would be nice to know. I had trusted that the "authorities" would try to ascertain its origin, to no avail. Nor could I get Wolter interested in checking it out right after I had found it about three years ago. He had indicated to me via email that he would try to check it out, but never followed through. I guess he is more interested in bogus, unholy bloodlines than he is in actual artifacts that could possibly shed new light on the KRS.

I suspect that the object may actually be a chisel holder, serving that purpose in addition to others. A wooden handle would turn it into a handy skull-crusher, capable also of smashing a rock war-club. A simple metal test for basic composition would tell a lot, and cost little. I have no idea whatever may have happened to the artifact. I did about all I could do, to no avail. The problem is that people in the community don't care, which is also why false information spills forth out of Runestone Park.

Seriously, no one seems to care that much about history. This experience for me has been both exciting and sad. At least I still have my logic-borne speculations. For you see, there is an obvious, Scandinavian, medieval frame-work up here that I'm trying to fit some loose puzzle pieces into. Columbus knew more than he let on, through his wife, and all he did was make a pass-by. Well before him, intrepid Scandinavians traveled far inland. There is proof and more proof will turn up, eventually.

I have faith in the raw mixture of history-curiosity and archaeology. I believe time will prove out what I'm hypothesizing...well, maybe not the Mandans. I just threw that back into the mix to jar a few jaws, if possible. But, you realize it is possible that the lost Greenlanders became part of the Mandan history, right? I like to look at a map and see just how close the Mandan Nation was to the multiplicity of Whetstone River Scandinavian evidences we can still find and appreciate to this very day. Maybe my speculations aren't really so far-fetched, after all, even about the Mandans being connected to the earlier stonehole makers...right next door. Anyway, at least we see how the stonehole makers arrived.

Lynn Brant

7/14/2014 10:47:43 am

I would agree that the NRS is as genuine as the KRS. And I agree that the hooked X was real in Europe. And I propose that the architect (if not the actual carver) of the KRS was aware of the hooked X in antiquity and used it for that very reason in the late 19th century. If Brown didn't carve the KRS, someone else did, and whoever did it no doubt used published accounts of the KRS as one source. Likewise with Spirit Pond. Much ado about very little to me.

Historian

7/15/2014 01:49:03 am

Philip Means book, The Newport Tower, was published in 1942. I know it was one of the first books I read when my interest in possible Norse explorations to NA was first born. If the stone eroded into the intertidal zone post 1939, and if it was seen with carvings by 1948, well, that decade might be perfect timing for Mean's book inspiring someone to place further "evidence" of Norse in Rhode Island specifically. And yes, of course this is pure speculation without evidence. I just think if anything could inspire such a hoax in the decade of the 40's, it might very well be Mean's study of the Newport Tower.

Given the size of the Western settlement in Greenland, it seems very unlikely they would have felt they had enough man power to establish more then one offshoot further south. Making Newfoundland the site of Vinland. And any potential voyages to southern New England short term exploratory, if at all. And once again, short term stays should not be expected to leave traces that we would ever find.

Historian

7/15/2014 02:49:19 am

Mark L07/15/2014 8:06am wrote:
Seems strange you've never been remotely bothered about the video of yourself at a famous artifact.

Well, it was 35mm, not video. Probably about 30 seconds? Just me sitting on the rock, raising both arms in the air and exclaiming: "I love inscription stones!" With that s**t eating grin. The last thing we expected that day was an actual inscription. We had followed up countless false leads over many years as an active RI Neara team. It's possible Tom Hardie, who was with me that day, may have showed the clip at a general Neara meeting, but to the best of my knowledge, I never asked him to show me. I had all my own photos from that day. Many photos showing the rock in it's location. None published, for fear of giving away the slightest of clue as to location. This was all written up, you understand. Documented with photos, written up, and published. My memories of 3 exact quotes, from the head of grounds at Scalibrinni, the fisherman walking by us, and my words sitting on the rock are still as clear as yesterday. But, I don't care if you or Gregor dismiss my personal memories as "just something that makes me who I am today" and totally false in reality. I know what I heard that day, what I said that day. And really, I was there; I don't see why it would be so strange that I apparently never said "hey Tom, show me the movie of me on the rock! Oh, boy!" Sorry, didn't happen. The event itself is documented, however, so a I completely reject Gregor's suggestion that we all have to wait until we can all go back to 1985 and be there with me. I'm really under no obligation to prove my memories to you or Gregor. On top of which, my memories and documented and published record of April 7, 1985 has nothing whatsoever to do with weighing the testimony of Brown and the McMahon's. The only relevant detail, a minor one, is the head of grounds stating he had seen the stone "about 20 years ago", which would work out to about 1965.

Historian

7/15/2014 02:57:27 am

Mark L07/15/2014 8:06am
Seems strange you've never been remotely bothered about the video of yourself at a famous artifact.

If you wish, you can explain why it seems strange to you. The rock that day was still unknown outside Pojac Point. It could not have been a "famous artifact" at that time. It was maybe 30 seconds of 35mm clip. And I was there, in the clip! So exactly why would It really be strange that I was not "remotely bothered"? I mean, what are you talking about?? It wasn't a feature film. I knew already what was on it. I don't even know now if Tom still has the film. So, you'll have to explain what is so strange. I don't get it at all.

Historian

7/15/2014 03:22:22 am

Gregor wrote:
"When we can go visit you on April 7, 1985... your claims ("memories") will be verifiable and open to scientific examination. As it stands your memories are neither "right" nor "wrong"...they cannot be. What they are is part of the fabric that makes you the person you are today. They are not, however, data that can be scrutinized and expounded as incontrovertible proof of anything."

Right, and the last words I said to my father before he expired cannot be right or wrong. They are just "part of the fabric that makes me the person I am today". I can't accurately remember those words because, it is apparently a scientific law that it would be impossible for me to remember.. Gee, with such pathetic memories, it's almost like we all have Alzheimer's. With the degree of fallibility suggested by Gregor, it's a wonder our civilization can function from one day to the next. There is theory, and then there is practical points of view. Sometimes the former is clueless regarding the latter.

Gregor

7/15/2014 09:55:50 am

@"Historian"

-shrug- First, I can't tell if your response to Gunn (seen above) is you trying your hand at sarcasm, or if you are literally contradicting yourself by rejecting his "evidence-less stories" while advocating your own.

Second, the fallibility of memories is not "my suggestion"; it's been demonstrated in a variety of tests, and the subject of many articles:

(a few examples)

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199501/its-magical-its-malleable-its-memory

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/18/health/lifeswork-loftus-memory-malleability/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/11/19/people-with-superhuman-memory-are-as-fallible-as-the-rest-of-us/#.U8WSoLH7T9M

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

Rage against it all you like, it matters not to me - your stories remain stories, and your memories remain unscientific recollections of experiences that have a range of accurate and inaccurate components, compounded by time, age, personal bias, etc. My point is not, nor has ever been, to deny you what you feel as personal experiences nor claim your persona or psyche is a "lie". My point is that you want to argue claims based on your personal recollections (or the recollections of others) and virtually no other evidence.

I don't care how trustworthy you think a family is, or how reasonable an individual might come off as, or how "shit-eating" your grin was: none of that can be examined in any scientific way and, as such, has no bearing at all on whether or not this information - whether the NRS is "real", whether Vikings landed in Rhode Island - is accurate and verifiable. So, you are welcome to enjoy the family, and the interviewees, and your memories; I will continue to reject them as any sort of concrete evidence (or even things that qualify as "investigation" or "research"). I really do imagine you're quite the folklorist, and have a number of interesting stories to tell - at least until you devolve into snide remarks and more straw-man arguments.

DarrellUSA

5/6/2019 07:37:03 am

And the McMahon's have no obligation to prove their memories to you.

Historian

5/6/2019 07:58:47 am

Gregor wrote: "Rage against it all you like, it matters not to me - your stories remain stories, and your memories remain unscientific recollections of experiences that have a range of accurate and inaccurate components, compounded by time, age, personal bias, etc. My point is not, nor has ever been, to deny you what you feel as personal experiences nor claim your persona or psyche is a "lie". My point is that you want to argue claims based on your personal recollections (or the recollections of others) and virtually no other evidence."

Gregor, understand everything that happened the day we first located the stone was written down that same day. How unreliable can my memories have been a mere several hours following that visit? I mean, I created a written record that day. Sure, the visit itself was over 30 years ago at this point(2019), but I still retain the written record created on that evening, including talking to the Scalabrinni caretaker, the fisherman who commented as he walked by us, etc. And I can still refer to that written record. That has to be accorded some degree of value, and it served as what I relied on in writing that first report on the rock for the Neara Journal. I don't have to rely on what I can recall decades later, I can refer to that written entry in my own description of that day's events. That makes a difference to me, regardless of your opinions on the unreliability of memories.

Historian

5/6/2019 08:36:03 am

This thread and comments are several years old now. I wish I had clarified that my record of our visit was written down at the time. It would have saved a lot of wasted arguing over "memories". Of course I still remember that day, but the entry in my own journal, which I created for each of our excursions in those days, was only several hours old, and of course have more value then my memories off the day years later. But, bottom line, the two do match. Since this thread was created, I questioned my colleague from that day, and he had no memory of the fisherman. But I do, and I wrote it down. And while I did not include reference to him in the Neara Journal report, even that report was written and sent to the editor within a very short time from the actual visit that day. My fault for not clarifying these elements at the time this was an ongoing thread from Colavito's blog entry on this subject.

And I don't reject the memories of the Pojac Point residents or Everett Brown's claims. They both cannot be right, but I cannot prove either, and I don't believe anyone can as yet, if ever. I do accept the runologist's conclusion that the script is unintelligible, and I remain intrigued by Brown's explaination of the characters he used, even with his changing story of his hooked X character. It's preserved and on display in Wickford now, with my 1985 photos included. Maybe someday earlier photos will turn up that will help weigh the value of the residents memories vs. Brown's claims.

Historian

7/15/2014 03:43:57 am

Mark L07/15/2014 8:06am
Seems strange you've never been remotely bothered about the video of yourself at a famous artifact.

Neara Journal, Vol. XX, No. 1&2 Summer/Fall 1985 page 30
"A Newly Located Inscription from Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island"

My only contribution to the stone's known history. My ego isn't such that I just had to see a film of me sitting on the rock grinning ear to ear, with arms raised in "triumph"(yes, I was excited, unless that too is a false memory, lol....) The quote from the fisherman and my quote did not appear in the article. That's my Alzheimer's speaking. Lol..

Historian

7/16/2014 12:54:26 am

Gregor wrote:

""I do admit that I think the stone's inscriptions are fake, and therefore am disinclined to believe local tales to the contrary based on (fallible) memories and nothing more. As for Brown's story... as I noted with the photograph comment, I feel it's unlikely to ever have genuine proof that Brown is the culprit. What we have is plausibility, and to decide which has more..."

Although Gregor claims he is interested in evidence and is a supporter of science, the above paragraph demonstrates otherwise. The real reason he was so objecting to the McMahon family had nothing whatsoever with science or objectivity. It was because he felt they were being supportive of authenticity. Even though their testimony does not prove or even supports any such thing. Gregor is pretending to be scientific, while making sure testimony that clearly supports fake is the only testimony worth considering. The above paragraph proves that he talks science, but when it comes to being objective, that ain't gonna happen!

Historian

7/16/2014 01:06:45 am

Gregor cites scientific studies as a way that, even for the historical record itself, it is of no importance to even record in detail the memories of the family that knew the rock better then anyone else over a 60 year period. Gregor is telling us, that because he thinks the stone is fake, all of that is somehow not necessary. Even for the historical record? Think about that. You're investigating this rock and you decide you don't need to talk to that family. As an historian, you know you need to start local, but not with this family. Amazing!

There have been NO straw man arguments. If you were writing a history of this rock, and left out the McMahon's because you heard they thought the rock was ancient, then that is pure bias. And you broadcast your bias in the quote above. You admit you don't like tales that are contrary, even though we all know it's just verbal testimony regardless of whose talking, it's all memory regardless. YOU just prefer the memories that support your conclusion. Who the heck do you think you're fooling?

Historian

7/16/2014 02:00:59 am

Nor have I ever suggested verbal testimony based on memory proves anything. In this particular case, nothing is going to substitute for a good, dated photo. Period. Or a drawing from the 19th century. Something actually substantive. Nobody can prove it Norse or Icelandic to begin with; the best we can do is see how far back is was known to have characters on it. Like it or not, that involves historical research. If we find a diary entry from 1834 describing a "curious rock" on the shore "near Quidnessett", that's interesting. If it comes with a drawing showing the characters, it becomes a lot more then interesting. Right now, we cannot be absolutely certain that Everett Brown is actually a part of the known history of this stone. But we do know the McMahon's are a part of that known history. You don't just ignore them because you're worried they think the script is "real". You record them in detail, question in detail, and that becomes part of the historical record of the stone. Nobody said you then judge everything they said is "100% gospel". That's something people can judge for themselves, with the fallibility of memory acknowledged as something that is taken into account. I'm not a folklorist. By training, an historian.
Recording in detail the McMahon's recollections is absolutely necessary, psychological theory notwithstanding!! I realize it's not the same thing, but with the standards based on psychological theory cited, witness testimony at civil and criminal trials would have to be eliminated as something in admissible. Just like hypnosis. Witness testimony no longer allowed at any trial due to psychological theory. And, because it's not just a theory, but a law, there will never be an exception. Memories are so untrustworthy that it will never be possible to dissect a memory to try and determine what elements might actually be accurate and could be independently verified. None of that is needed because psychological theory renders historical research that involves talking with living witnesses entirely mute. Nobody said the memories are infallible or on the same level as forensic evidence. But they do have some value. The only way they can be of no value whatsoever is if we simply say, no statements should be taken from anybody if the statement involves anything that happened even 10 minutes prior to the statement. Despite all your citations, testimony is still recorded by any responsible, objective historian. Protest all you want, but you yourself went on the record, right here, as admitting you are "disinclined to believe local tales to the contrary", where contrary is "might not be fake". Yet, I'll say it again, their testimony is not contrary to a conclusion of "fake", therefore what you are really saying is you are not interested in anything that does not fit your own conclusion, although in this instance, you are being overly cautious in that respect since their testimony is neutral vis a vis the question of authenticity. You even assumed, with no evidence whatsoever, that I was trying to support a Norse or Icelandic theory for the stone's origin. You went right on the record as suggesting that. You were subjective. I was objective. The only mistake I made I it initially with your take is not realizing you knew the rock was fake. You had reached that conclusion. You, on the other hand, were so concerned the McMahon testimony brought authenticity through the door, that you suggested that's what I was trying to do. So, it is really you who is anti-scientific here; it is really you who wishes to use subjective arguments based on misinterpreting my motives based on your imagination. Am I trying to say the Icelanders came, left an inscription, and no other trace you ask? Right out of your imagination, since you apparently could not recognize when true objectivity was staring you in the face. So, protest all you want, Gregor, you betrayed your hand twice: assuming McMahon's account somehow supported authenticity when it did not, and assuming I did as well, when I did not. Cite all the psychological papers you wish; your bias is there for all to see, right on the record.

Historian

7/16/2014 02:17:02 am

One other mistaken assumption that Gregor put on the record here:
the McMahon's testimony was voluntary according to Gregor; they came forward to volunteer their account. How does Gregor know this?
The fact is DiMarzo had to seek them out, for purposes of this story. They came forward after being contacted. Irrelevant detail, but an example of how Gregor is willing to assume things that will support his point of view regarding "local pride". Just mis state the facts. Very scientific, very objective. Not!

Historian

7/16/2014 02:36:53 am

I believe my bottom line here is that when doing historical research, Gregor's standard, which certainly seems equivalent to saying recording witness statements is really something that does not have to be done; it can be skipped altogether, because there is no value in recording memories of the object one is trying to trace the history of, the known history of. Gregor wishes to simply note that, in it's essence, due to psychological theory, we really don't even have to record the known history. Unless there is written documentation(which itself might be based on an 1840 memory of an 1820 visit to the rock-in admissible, it's memory), it is left unrecorded. I'm sure I'm overstating Gregor's position here, but that does seem to be the logical conclusion to Gregor's train of thought. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not how it works in the discipline of History. All those psychological reasons for doubting testimony can be applied after the fact, after the statements are recorded in full, with pointed questioning, on tape, for the record, and for the historical record. Trying to make such an approach scientifically illegitimate is not an objective point of view at all. It is not a scientific position at all. It seeks to cut off the necessity of recording witness statements before they've even been heard. And in this particular instance, Gregor's linking McMahon's account with efforts to dispute the fake status is very telling, IMO, in suggesting a less then objective stance.

Historian

7/16/2014 02:50:04 am

Maybe the bottom line as I've come to interpret it through my own filter/bias is that Gregor appears to be suggesting that oral history is not needed; in it's essence and in terms of it's value, it is a complete waste of time. Oral history is worthless. Yet, with living witnesses, an historical researcher starts there, while it's available. Of great value, of little value, it's part of an investigation that involves the discipline of history. And psychological theory is not going to eliminate that aspect of an historical investigation at all. Nor should it. Ever!!

Matt Mc

7/16/2014 02:34:40 am

funny thing is all this talk is about a rock, that even if not fake (doubtful in my opinion) it will always be viewed a fake. While some make take it to be true it will always just be a small footnote in history much like the fiji mermaid, What is IT?, or other 19 and 20th century hoaxes or scams.

Nothing will ever change that, no research, no facts, nothing. While I give people credit for wanting to find the truth, who created it, and when it was created it only will make a difference to a few.

So while the quest for truth is fun, nothing will ever make it more than a fraud even if it in reality is true. Its only real use is that of a roadside attraction and even then only a select few will be interest. Over time the myth of the stone will alter, change and adapt its history will get more colorful and its real origins even less important. It already has grown past the point that no matter what the proven origin is there will be many parties that refuse to believe it.

So lets enjoy the myth around it and accept it has long past the point of having any real relevance except to create speculation and for some an interesting stop while on a road trip.

Matt Mc

7/16/2014 02:48:57 am

Also I would like to add, I highly doubt you were filmed using a 35mm film camera. A 35mm film camera (not photographs but motion film) weighed about 50 pounds. In 1985 a 20 minute reel of 35mm film would of run about $100 dollars and cost about $150 to develop. At the time 8mm and 16 mm would of been much more practical and affordable even for university research at the time.

Now I do not doubt you where filmed for 30 seconds sitting upon the stone, I doubt the type of camera used and since you stated 35mm several time, Historian, I call that into question. There is no practical sense in using a 35mm when cheaper methods were available at the time, not even getting into the whole transporting a camera and tripod part of the equation. Also both early Betamax and VHS camera where around and used commonly at the same time also.

Gunn link

7/16/2014 06:01:54 am

Matt Mc, you are far too pessimistic, as history is a bit flexible. There is always the possibility that more "hooked X" evidence may be found under controlled circumstances, making these other existing hooked X artifacts more apparent. It's too easy for someone to say something is a fake, or to make such a bold declaration without credentials. The opinion can be utterly worthless, meaningless...as is true in the reverse, too, when personalities pretend to have credentials they do not have in their attempts to persuade. In some cases, self-declared credentials are not much different from fruit rotting on the vine....

Historian says: "Mooring holes and questionable inscriptions do not cut it." Well, Historian, if this were a game, you'd get bounced back to square one for referring to stoneholes up here in MN/SD as "mooring holes." You absolutely should consider changing yer moniker, as you are hereby discredited!

Matt Mc

7/16/2014 06:18:32 am

Gunn, not being pessimistic at all. Lore become greater than history at some point. Sure the true history will always be there sitting in a book but the lore is what gets spread around.

Here is a local experience from my area.

My house is right near the location of the what most people to believe to be the former location of the house that the 12 year old boy whose story influence the William Peter Blatty book the Exorcist. The house identified in a Washington Post article about the exorcism and Blatty read it and adapted the story into his novel and subsequent movie.

There is a problem however the location in question (now a park) is not and was never the home of the boy. The author of the post changed the location by a few blocks to protect the boys identity instead choosing a house that was vacant at the time. Neighbors, historians, and researchers have long made this a fact and have even provided that actual address of the house but the lore grew up around the house. The house became so infamous that no on would by it and the fire department then used it as a practice house and burned it down, they built a park there, and almost every weekend people come to the park to have their picture taken at the location of the true story behind the Exorcist. The actual house whose address has been known for decades has not traffic and is ignored. There is even a small plaque at the park saying that the park is built at the rumored location of the house but the real house is further down the road.

See no one cares for the truth, the legend built up on the property, stories circulate about an evil so bad the city had to burn the house down. No matter how many times people are told where the real house is they do not care, they want the house of lore,the glorious victorina that had to be burned down to stop the evil inside the one that was misidentified in the paper, the one that people go online and post photos of them at the gazebo that stand there now,. They do not want picture of them at actual house on a street with 20 other identical looking houses one that has held families since the 40's with no problems except for that one incident.

I just believe the lore and the mystery behind the lore is greater than the truth. Most people want a good yarn and when that yarn and lore comes in conflict with the truth mostly the lore wins out.

Matt Mc

7/16/2014 06:20:16 am

Here is a good article telling the tale behind the Exorcist.

http://www.strangemag.com/exorcistpage1.html

Gunn

7/16/2014 06:51:54 am

The difference in the significance of the "truth" in the two examples is important. I see what you're saying, but the truth connected with the correct address in your example wouldn't seem to be very important compared to say, early "American" medieval history.

Lore aside, please, whenever possible. Those interested in history should always be interested in the truth, and those who can, should help educate...yes, to avoid mere lore in favor of truth.

Matt Mc

7/16/2014 06:56:07 am

I quite agree Gunn, it will always matter to the select few who truly care and are interested and it should be there for them but for the general public the lore always is more interesting.

At least that is how I see it and I think that people should always take that into account. History is full of events where the lore became fact and the fact slowly disappeared.

Kent Spottswood link

7/16/2014 07:32:53 am

Scholars, skeptics, ladies and gentlemen of science, please! Let's focus on our common enemy: ignorance.

Internal quibbles are understandable as they call into question the validity of our methods of research. Nobody likes that. But the real problem of the Narragansett Rune Stone and "America Unearthed" comes from the cherry picking, nonsense research methodolgy, and outright lies of people with an agenda, in this case the idea that Vikings or Templars sailed up and down the coast of New England leaving carvings on a peculiar collection of not particularly noticeable rocks.

I appreciate Matt Mc's anecdote about "The Exorcist" house. My own experience researching "The Conjuring" house has a happier ending. I think I may actually have taken the wind out of the sails of some of the paranormal blowhards who wrote about the place. Obviously, not all of them. So it goes.

Wild speculation thrives in a vacuum. By publicizing Mr. Brown's statements and by insisting on hard evidence (photography, published texts, etc.), Jason Colavito, Historian, and many others here have contributed to a lasting doubt about the authenticity of the stone. And, as any of you would surely agree, without hard proof, this is as it should be.

The war against ignorance may never end. But at least a small battle for truth has been won. Peace.

Historian

7/17/2014 02:12:37 am

I'm going to present another argument. With complete deference to the qualifying observations regarding witness testimony, so keep that in mind.

I have copies of the stone after it's recovery showing the fresh scars created by heavy equipment used to dump it in deeper water. Even after one year under water, the freshness of that damage is quite apparent. There is no match to the darker patina on the rest of the stone. This demonstrates, conclusively, that if the inscription was carved in 1964, the bright freshness of the carvings would have made it like a neon sign against the dark host rock. For a long time, if one year under water did not patinated it to disguise it's freshness.

But now we turn to the McMahon clans's narrative. Calling it Indian Rock, when they were children in the 50's. Familiar enough with the 6 ton erratic to give it a name. But, let's day Brown carved it in 1964. We need to ask, and if you think all memories are worth jack-s**t when all is said and done, you've got your answer(but not my answer), how could 7 siblings of a family not notice that their "Indian Rock" SUDDENLY had a bright as a neon sign inscription on it appearing over the summer of 1964. Just ask yourself, how could they honestly forget that a rock they knew that well SUDDENLY acquire what HAD to be a very fresh looking inscription one summer. A full 16 years after they moved there. It was all but in their front year, so saying they first saw the rock in 64 or later won't cut it.

Historian

7/17/2014 02:20:15 am

So, after living on site for 16 years, and claiming to play at the rock as children, an inscription appears "overnight" figuratively speaking, all bright and fresh(it HAD to be, and I CAN prove that with photos of what the interior looks like when scraped, or CARVED), and nobody in this family recalls this sudden appearance of an inscription. No, we cannot be certain without that photographic or documentation "forensic" evidence, but what I'm describing as to what would HAVE TO BE the case if it was carved in 64, may seem a stretch to many. We can't discount the McMahon family clan's narrative based on the possible application of psychological theorizing given the above described conditions here in this story.

Historian

7/17/2014 02:26:56 am

Sorry, should read "it was all but in their front yard", not year. Dang iPad...

But ask yourself, even though 100% hypothetical. Would you notice if a rock you were familiar with for 16 years suddenly had a fresh looking inscription on it where none existed before? Especially given it would HAVE to look bright and fresh(just like the 2012 damage incurred)?
I sure would. I don't know how I could NOT notice such a change. Yet the McMahon's do not apparently have any such recollection. If Brown is correct, I maintain that that is one extraordinary oversight on the part of the McMahon clan!!

Historian

7/17/2014 03:04:31 am

If I ask myself, what is more likely, absent forensic evidence:

The McMahon's saw the stone and inscription shortly after moving on site in 1948. They attached the nickname "Indian Rock" not long after.

Or:

The inscription appeared suddenly, in 1964. The lack of patina on the fresh scrape marks, even after 1 year under water, is virtual proof positive that an inscription rendered in 1964 would have looked much fresher for quite a length of time after it was carved. But, the McMahon's, not a one, remember that the rock they profess to have been familiar with, acquired a fresh looking inscription one summer, 1964 according to Brown..

If everything else is equal, how could the McMahon's back their own narrative and have just forgotten the script appeared as a fresh rendering a full 16 years after they moved there? Psychological theorizing notwithstanding, subscribing to scenario two requires the McMahon's forgetting some pretty impossible not to notice aspects to their rock! I believe it is far more likely, given the fact forgetting the sudden fresh appearance would seem difficult to do, for all 7 sibling's memories, that the McMahon's testimony stating the inscription was there when they moved there is not something that can be easily explained by any theory. IMHO. They may be telling the truth. Remember, if Brown is right, this inscription HAD to appear fresh and bright for likely some years! And if you are Mr. McMahon and see that for the first time, one day in 1964, and you don't even notice the change?? We are asking a lot here; at least some will conclude we are asking a lot here. We need to be completely fair and not settle easily for the solution we WANT to be the solution.

Matt Mc

7/17/2014 03:16:57 am

Honestly neither scenario has much weight in my opinion. Both are too reliant on person recollection, which as stated before is subject to change over time. One can speculated on how much the recollection has change or has not, how more then one person could have similar memories but it is just that speculation.

Historian

7/17/2014 05:27:36 am

Given that the inscription would have appeared suddenly, 16 years after moving to the property, with the stone close to being on their front lawn, not remembering the sudden appearance of a fresh as the morning dew inscription just being there one day long after you moved there, should mean McMahon's testimony carries more wright then the testimony of someone who cannot even prove he was ever on site.

Historian

7/17/2014 05:35:44 am

When first carved in 1964, you could have seen that inscription as bright lines against the host rock from at least 50 feet away. And it appears on a rock that is all but in your front yard. And when you see it for the first time since Brown carved it, you don't notice a bright new inscription of some sort has been added? You don't say "hey, look at that; where the hell did THAT come from?". I'm all for caution with memories, but I'm not in favor of flushing common sense down the drain. Common sense says you notice the change. But it never occurs to the McMahon's that the rock has been altered. Tough to wrap my head around what common sense is telling me must have been the case if the inscription appeared suddenly, long after they were familiar with it.

Matt Mc

7/17/2014 06:05:42 am

Again its all speculation, that is all I am saying. 50 year old statements are just statements and subject to a 50 years of faulty memory and outside influence. For all we know it could of been of so little importance that no one noticed, who can say. It all is speculative and without any real documentation it remains that way. These memories can be a clue but they can never be taken more than that a small clue that could and most likely be subjected to outside influence and faulty memory, so again it leads us to say that any conclusion based on these memories can be nothing but speculative.

Like I said above at this point it is doubtful we will ever know the truth and the stone now has a lore and myth built around it and it continues to build. The truth of its origin most likely will never be determined and there will always be questions as to when it was first observed or when it wasn't. The only truth seems to be that at is first discovery (whenever it was) no one thought it was that important so no real documentation was made and now we are saddled with conflicting stories and ideas that can lead to no real conclusions.

Historian

8/13/2014 02:13:37 am

Can't really disagree with you at all here.

Jeroen Bruijns

7/17/2014 08:28:54 am

I always wonder why the Colombian exchange didn't happen before 1492, if there earlier contacts between the old and the new world. Any comment from mr Wolter cum suis

Historian

7/18/2014 01:44:16 am

It was suggested near the top of this comment section that weighing "plausibility" of the competing narratives, in the absence of evidence such as photos, was the best we can do at this point. And I agree; the above arguments was an effort to examine the plausibility where the McMahon clan was concerned. If one wishes, one can interpret their narrative as an example of just how far memory can deviate from the actual facts.

A word about patina. Having been involved with prehistoric stone artifacts for nearly 60 years, I do have a lot of experience judging patina, depth of patina, lack of patina, and fake patina(If an artifact class is valuable, there will be many fakes created. There's $$$ involved after all). The scratches on the rock caused by heavy equipment exposed the un patinated fresh interior, and nearing two years later, the contrast created by little patina within the scratches vs. the patinated surface of the boulders unaltered skin or cortex is still a very stark contrast. I simply wish too point out that the fresh look, the lack of patina within the characters of the inscription would have had the same stark contrast for awhile after the characters were rendered. And I believe I can state with some confidence that the contrast would have been apparent, the fresh nature of the inscription, in other words, would have been very noticeable for a period of years, not weeks or months. Years. 50 years?? No, I doubt it; I do believe the contrast created by lack of patina aside a heavily patinated boulder cortex would have sufficiently faded sooner then 50 years.

Because this fresh appearance had to be the case if carved in 1964, when the McMahon's were living on site, it just surprises me that they would all forget the inscription actually appeared "of a sudden". But I'm not ruling out error on their part. It just causes me to find their account somewhat plausible. With Brown's account, on the other hand, well, I liked the guy and he sounded truthful and at ease. But I can't even prove he was on site at this point. But, memory being memory, I can't rule Brown out as the carver.

Historian

7/18/2014 03:40:58 am

Matt Mc wrote:

"Also I would like to add, I highly doubt you were filmed using a 35mm film camera. A 35mm film camera (not photographs but motion film) weighed about 50 pounds. In 1985 a 20 minute reel of 35mm film would of run about $100 dollars and cost about $150 to develop. At the time 8mm and 16 mm would of been much more practical and affordable even for university research at the time.

Now I do not doubt you where filmed for 30 seconds sitting upon the stone, I doubt the type of camera used and since you stated 35mm several time, Historian, I call that into question. There is no practical sense in using a 35mm when cheaper methods were available at the time, not even getting into the whole transporting a camera and tripod part of the equation. Also both early Betamax and VHS camera where around and used commonly at the same time also."

Thanks! Not a camera person, so I can really only say he was using a movie camera from the days before camcorders. I'm sure I was only in the short clip to provide scale.

Matt Mc

7/18/2014 04:18:10 am

What I was trying to illustrate was how time can affect memories and the information provide from them. 35mm was a standard for still photography something that people commonly knew at the time and was talked about frequently to distinguish from polariods or disposables that were used at the time.

In your recollections of you experiences you filled in a blank, you did not know what kind of film it was but in repeating you added that fact.

That is all, just wanted to point out that we in recalling things tend to fill in blanks, maybe sometime dates can be days, months, or even years off. Locations can be changed, ect..

Historian

7/26/2014 01:26:22 am

Just bear in mind, my memory says he used a movie camera. I just stated 35mm because that's what film I mistakenly thought the old movie camera used. The 35 mm was not something taken from memory. And you're right, and in fact 35mm was what I was using for my own still shots with my own Olympus camera. Tom was using a movie camera, and I don't really know what type of film they took.

Historian link

7/25/2014 03:43:40 pm

In the edition of 7/19/14 of the North Kingstown Patch, Everett Brown left a statement describing his claim of having rendered the carving in a piece titled "I created the Narragansett Rune-Please Read!" This was posted in a section of the Patch called "Speak out". In case anyone wishes to read it. As well, he is seeking comments.

http://northkingstown.patch.com/groups/opinion/p/i-created-the-narragansett-rune--please-read-

Historian

7/26/2014 04:43:04 am

Here is Everett Brown's statement:

My name is Everett Brown. I carved the Runes in the very early 1960's.
Here is my TRUE story and facts surrounding this "mystery".

I became aware of the interest in my carving when my brother, Warren, called and stated" remember when we were kids and used to go to Pojac Point with the family..... and you carved that stone? Well, guess what? It's in the Journal".
Shocked, I discovered that the rune was indeed generating interest and I thought I needed to have my say..... in spite of what the experts claim. Fact is, the "experts" are incorrect when some state that the stone dates to 1300 while others state as recent as the 1940's. If they listen to me , the story is far less grand but still interesting, I believe.
My family used to travel by boat to Pojac Point each summer. I was 13 at the time and became interested in this one particular stone ( now the infamous Rune Stone). Each time my family visited, I would use either a pointed chisel OR a flat head chisel, sometimes, both. I would work at the carving from 5am til about 1:30 pm in the afternoon or until my parents would summon me back to the boat where it was anchored. There were other boats there as well. In fact, we were very close to the Scalabrini Home.
I was unfamiliar with runes but sought out certain runes that resembled letters. Put on a thirteen year old mind for a minute and you may see the wonder I felt as I carved what was simplt letters....just letters.
Looking at the Projo photo I asked myself" what went wrong here"? Remember, I'm looking back to a summer project after 50 years of summers have passed.
Then I recalled that I began to hurry the project, mistakes were made and the lower part of the "A" was compromised. The fourth letter and the "mistake" were to be identical. But , I am NOT a master carver, just a 13 year old kid at the time.
The "hooked X " as the experts like to refer it as, is more shallow than the rest. I have no memory of using a "rat tail" file but gently used a pointed and a flat chisel because I was deathly afraid of damaging adjacent runes.
The " F" character was carved nicely. I recall being very pleased with the result. The summer was ending but I knew I would return the following summer to continue my work.... and I did. With a vengence.
My story is VERY detailed and I am hoping that you will find it interesting. If there are comments that favor my story to its conclusion, please post your comments and I will continue.
PLEASE be aware that there are many who are attempting to discredit me. Many who have self interests and many who would be devastated that their hypothesis was far from the truth. Experts who cannot agree that the stone was either carved 400 years ago or 50 years ago.
I am the creator of the Narragansett Rune. I will take a polygraph test to prove that and have insisted that they somehow find the funds to "put me to the test".
I have ZERO to gain, my neighbors. ZERO.
What do they have to gain?
Frankly, if the stone is placed on display and folks come to see its beauty, they will need to know its origin. It begins and ends with me.....
Believe the artist NOT the experts who want to make something out of this that it simply is not.
PLEASE POST YOUR COMMENTS

** Dictated by E.B .... written by J.E.C

Historian

7/26/2014 04:44:57 am

And he added this comment to the above:

Hello,
To clarify: The rune that I carved was done so ONLY when the tides would allow. I noticed a time error but was unable to correct after posting. As my true story unfolds, I will post many facts for you to consider and ask that you come to your own conclusion, respectfully. I am anxious to share my story of a fascinating journey that filled my childhood with wonderful memories of Pojac Point. An area that I still, to this day, find magical.
My story will continue and the facts will show how the Narragansett rune stone was created..... step by step. I am the only person who can provide that information. Thank you, E.B / JEC

Tom

8/3/2014 05:17:41 pm

So the big three choices are Vikings writing in code and concealing their message to low tide where only quahoggers could read it. The Knights Templar bringing a direct line to Jesus as depicted in the Monty Python documentary. Then there's Everett Brown's story which would only be believable if he were possessed by the devil or from another planet. Give the guy a lie detector test! Do some actual science. This is a great history lesson ie history is often bullcrap.

Historian

8/5/2014 01:05:25 pm

The North Kingstown Patch has reported that the RIDEM, after it's investigation, has concluded Brown is most likely lying. He did not speak with any state investigators, apparently, despite efforts to contact him. But the "earlier" witnesses did speak with investigators.
Here is the URL, or just go to North Kingstown Patch.

http://patch.com/rhode-island/north-kingstown/dem-says-no-evidence-support-browns-claim-carving-rune-stone#.U-Fu8tq9KSN

geno leech link

8/9/2014 05:15:09 am

IF YOU CAN'T TRUST AN ACCORDIAN PLAYER, WHO CAN YOU TRUST?

Historian

8/9/2014 07:05:04 am

"IF YOU CAN'T TRUST AN ACCORDIAN PLAYER, WHO CAN YOU TRUST?"

It's very disillusioning, lol......

Tom

8/13/2014 01:12:12 am

DEM didn't investigate. They left two messages on Brown's answering machine while he was at work. So why did they come out with a statement? I find that odd. Anyway he went to their office last week and I'm not sure of the outcome of that other than what Mr. Brown told me "nice guys, we had a good laugh".

Bryan link

2/1/2015 02:56:43 pm

Reading this string of arguments over the NRS creation date of 1964 makes it clear to this visitor how vigorously people who support one or another side of an argument will try to persuade others their viewpoint is correct. Accepting the word of a single person above that of seven people seems to me incredulous based on the premise that all seven are being deceitful out of a sense of pride it somehow importantly to them brings to their state. That actually seems far past ludicrous. Using vague and weak arguments lessens correct understanding of history and we must cautiously establish our opinions by not allowing bias of others to determine history. Even still today history is being recorded too often inaccurately and this will leave future generations to search for understanding of events. Each should seek facts for ourselves based upon research and use our experiences as to what is logical as to decisions when we consider the evidence to make a collaborative history as accurate as possible and including all plausible explanations of events of any time.

There is no logical reason to suspect seven family members have memories that are faulty based on a single account by someone who suddenly claims ownership of the NRS. I will explain why I am confident the family members account is correct. I also explain why a photograph would not at that time have been thought important to take other than to record a family photo the lack of which herein has been used as some kind of proof it was not present before 1964.

Me and my four siblings have a similar story which I base my decision as to this debate largely on that experience. I will relate my story to address the arguments supporting what I believe seems reasonable. My siblings and I as children first found and thereafter throughout our teenage years regularly visited a location of Native American petroglyphs hidden in the heavily wooded mountains near a remote town where we lived in the Rocky Mountains. My story occurred during the same period during the 1960's as this debate which it is important to understand people's common beliefs then. Also access to cameras and cost of film should be understood between now and that time as it is very different as to that argument. Important considerations to us today were very different then. Therefore, history of the period needs understood to understand how to frame decisions regarding history of today, even for recent history as just in 1964. Reviewing the debate framed from a perspective based upon my having lived during that time period having had a similar experience helped my confidence I am correct as to when created. During 1964 I do not believe to be plausible.

Neither myself, my siblings or our parents who we showed the petroglyphs my brother first found in 1962 gave any thought as to taking photographs of them although we often went there as it is an amazing place to visit. Today with the over abundance of cameras undoubtedly we would have taken pictures then. At the time, people did not have today's ubiquitous camera phones and cheap digital cameras without even need of film or film processing cost. In 1964 it was far different. Cameras were not cheap, never readily available as today and film and processing the film was a considerable cost during that era for many families. Pictures were not taken often and many people did not even own a working camera as they were broken easily and expensive to replace. We certainly never thought it important enough to ask our parents to allow us to take the family camera and also because it never would have been allowed. Nor did they ever take a photo of the petroglyphs the family visited often and we came to call the "Rock Circle".

Picture taking not only was due to the factors discussed but it was also due to how we were taught regarding history in school as it was taught as if it was thoroughly documented and beyond questioning. At that time we did not have the History Channel or many similar TV channels to influence our thinking. Today TV shows present although often seemingly far fetched programming, programs do challenge our thinking and leads us to question our workd. We just did not have the channels and technologies we have today that stir within us the desire to seek more accurate historical and other forms of knowledge. Therefore, other than perhaps a serious amateur historian or a student or professor of history, few at that time understood all the historical facts known today and would have questioned history we had been taught as irrefutable. We were taught basically our history was set in stone, no other interpretation was possible as events had long been recorded. Only recently has it became understood we need to examine our history again.

It was a different time during the 1960's and for that matter until the past decades unless you found something clearly "mind blowing" no person would have considered calling attention to anything less than an

Americanegro

3/14/2017 06:48:11 pm

Just getting caught up in/on this discussion, and wow are you completely wrong about the camera game in the early 60s! Everything you said is wrong. Rather than list them individually I will just say that.

CJ Lehman

3/12/2015 05:54:52 am

I have noticed how much emphasis is being placed upon the opinions of the "world of academia" as if they were all knowing Gods. Being mere humans, they all will bring their biases "to the table" (albeit unintentionally). How many times in the past have someone proposed an idea where these supposed men of science flatly denied its possible relevance because it did not agree with "their" current opinion and/or knowledge only to have the "world of academia" proven wrong decades later? Just keep in mind that just because these "scholars" says something is or isn't does not make it so. I have found through past experience that members of the world of academia are the most arrogant and closed minded members of our society.

Historian

11/4/2015 12:12:41 pm

Henrick Williams of Uppsala University in Sweden is one of the foremost authorities in runic alphabets in the world. He has concluded that there is absolutely no reason to doubt the memories of Goodhue or the McMahon family. Furthermore, in March of 2014 he came to RI and studied the NRS under what he described as perfect lighting conditions. He published his report here:

http://files.webb.uu.se/uploader/267/Narragansett%20Stone%20Report%203.1%20Williams%202014.pdf

His conclusion? He believes the NRS is modern, and suggested a time frame of 1890's-1940's.

Further, a close friend of Everett Brown offered the following: "Everett loves to tell stories. But we never know when he's telling one of his tales or telling the truth." Well gee, I wonder whose account, whose memories sound more credible now? All this foolishness by Gregor regarding memories. It is perfectly clear, indeed Goodhue has located an early photograph, that Goodhue and the McMahon's memories were not faulty at all! Just as I suggested all along. There is a point where the false memory argument reaches an absurd level, and Gregor advocated that absurd argument to the hilt. Brown was a liar.
Goodhue and McMahon were telling the truth, with valid memories, right from the start.....

Josephine Barnds-Brown

11/20/2015 11:12:47 pm

For the past 1 1/2 years I have biting my tongue to not respond to nasty comments being made about Everett Brown. However with the last comment I feel that I must- I do not believe one of Everett's friends would ever say the statement..."we never know when he is telling one of his tales or telling the truth". That statement was either a downright lie or not said by a friend. All of us who know and love Everett realize he is an eccentric who would be the kind of kid that would be carving in a rock instead of swimming. The reason more is not being heard from Everett is that he does not care what others think about him or the stone's history. He knows what the truth is and actually thinks it amazing about all the theories that have come about from what was a summer pastime to a little boy.
Just as a sidebar- One morning last year I started to read in amazement about a cool rock that was discovered with carvings-my husband Warren stopped eating and said " I think my brother did that when he was a kid"- I laughed and told him he was nuts because historians had determined...and he insisted his brother Everett did it and them proceeded to call Ev at work and told him to get a newspaper.
Now the stone is being displayed- sad part is it makes me question the validity of other artifacts that have been found and displayed all around the world.
Lastly, no one has yet to comment on where the stone is being displayed: Brown Street- ironic or fate?

Historian

11/21/2015 07:37:04 pm

I know this. If I had carved the inscription, and if I had been willing to tell my story to both press and researchers, and if I were being truthful in that story, then I most certainly would have appeared before the North Kingstown Town Council and laid my claim at their feet. In an impassioned manner. I would have left absolutely no doubt in anybody's mind that I was telling them the truth. "And, esteemed council members, that is my story for you to believe or not. It is off my chest now. The decision is in your hands." If I had carved that inscription, and I saw a travesty about to happen via an installation and BS, you can be certain I would pull out all the stops to make damn sure the Town Council heard me speak. They heard Scott Wolter. Maybe they should have heard Everett Brown. Had I carved it, they would have heard from me. In spades. Even if I did not care if they believed me. If I'd been telling every Tom, Dick, and Harry, then I can damn well tell the Council as well. I would be much more distressed by a mistake being made then, sadly, Everett was. But, obviously, that's me. I care enough about history that a I would have at least made a genuine effort to prevent a mistake in this matter.

Historian

11/21/2015 07:21:37 pm

"The reason more is not being heard from Everett is that he does not care what others think about him or the stone's history. He knows what the truth is and actually thinks it amazing about all the theories that have come about from what was a summer pastime to a little boy."

And yet Everett Brown cared enough to talk to several reporters. He cared enough to talk to several researchers. But he did not care enough to talk to DEM detectives who wished only to determine the veracity of his claim. But he cared enough to go to the press about it. When quite a few people signed affidavits claiming to see the inscription as early as 1948, Mr. Brown remained silent. If his claim were true, then he behaved irresponsibly. He cared enough to stop any installation last year. But he did not care enough to actually back the claim up when it would have really made a difference, had he been able to back it up. He wanted people to know, yet he didn't want people to actually know. If, as claimed, Everett never really cared at all, then he should have kept his tale to himself. I found him to be extremely personable. But does he expect anyone to really believe that he created the most controversial rune in the Americas, controversial wherever it appears on runestones here in North America, entirely by accident, a chisel that slipped and created a perfect Hooked X? ? After FIRST claiming it was chosen deliberately because his parents were in a hurry? On these scores, Mr. Brown failed miserably to help himself at all. But no matter, because now we know he never cared in the first place. Wonderful job!! But what baffles me is how a man who does not care if anyone knows the truth goes to the press. And how someone feels the installation is a shame when in fact Everett refused to talk to the very people who might actually have believed him and prevented this display. He could have talked to the other witnesses as well. He could have made an actual effort. Certainly going to the press about it demonstrates that in fact he did want his story out there. Yet somehow, not that much. The shame is not on Wickford or the installation. If what you are saying is true, the shame is very much on Everett Brown. He's certainly free, or his brother is free, to just back it all up. I care. A whole bunch of people care!! I have no problem whatsoever with....TRUTH. No problem at all, and I was very involved with this. But the truth never hurt me. I could not care less if it was rendered in 1963 or 1363. All he had to do was talk with investigators. It might not have made any difference, but why call the installation a shame when Everett just did not give a damn!

Josephine

11/22/2015 09:11:33 am

Ah that is where you are mistaken Mr.Historian. Everett went down to DEM and was told the woman he needed to talk to was not in. He ultimately did talk with her and was told " it was too late" and the matter had already been settled. Everett had even offered to take a polygraph test but was told that he would have to pay for it. As a historian you should know many people do not really want to know "the truth" of many historical events- just think of Thanksgiving, Christopher Columbus to name only a smidgeon . As far as you calling the carvings " one of the most controversial runes in America" -Do you really think the parties that have spent money investigating it or the experts who would have "egg on their faces" really want to know the truth? This, in fact, is what history interesting and sometimes controversial .

Historian

11/22/2015 10:39:55 am

I will bring this up with the woman in question. As well as others. I thank you for this info. We have been told one of the Pojac Point witnesses located a pre 1963 photo. This info came out the day of the installation. The rune I am talking about is considered controversial because it has long been used to call into question the authenticity of the Kensington Rune stone and the Spirit Pond runestones. The runic experts say this rune was never used in actual runic context prior to the late 1800's. For which reason, this rune, the so-called Hooked X, has been used to say both those runestones(actually 3 stones in the case of the Spirit Pond stones) are modern, indeed, must be modern.

So, perhaps you can appreciate how strange it would seem for Everett to say he actually created it accidently, not even knowing it's controversial history elsewhere. Under most any circumstances, the odds of that happening seem astronomical. Yet, in another conversation, with me as well as others, he later stated that no, he did create that Hooked X deliberately. That was the biggest problem I had with Everett's account. I am not referring to the entire script when I say "the most controversial carving." Just that one character. Can you understand why it would appear to be asking a lot to believe that the one single character, and it's the first character in the second line of the NRS carving, the character that all runic authorities focus on when judging the Kensington and Spirit pond stones, was somehow created quite by accident by Everett, as he at first stated? That is one heck of an astounding coincidence. But then he changed his mind as to how it actually was carved, and then stated that it was indeed deliberate on his part. That was my biggest problem with Everett's account. Basically, having two stories for the same single character.

In all honesty, if Everett or his brother could themselves find old photos, old diary entries, any supportive evidence at all, I would gladly make sure the right people see that evidence.

Yep, you are quite right that some people would not want to see that happen. But so many affidavits signed by I believe 9 witnesses, convinced the investigators that Everett was the unsupported outlier in the story. Ironically, the signage ends with a quote from THE runic authority, whose analysis of the script concluded IT MUST HAVE BEEN CARVED IN 1890's-1940. I fully support the conclusion that the inscription is modern. I believe it was carved after it arrived in the intertidal zone after 1940. It was not on the beach, the rock itself, before 1940. I have no problem believing Everett could have done this. But his conflicting story, and 9 other witnesses, did make it difficult. Maybe you can at least appreciate that fact. I've always suspected it was modern, for which reason I was initially very excited by Everett coming forward. And I would present anything he had if I thought it would make a difference, even at this late date.

But I wanted to clarify what I meant by how strange it seems that someone could just create, by accident, the single character that is most responsible for calling into question the authenticity of those other American runestones. Then, when Everett changed his story, it was only natural that his credibility took a hit in my eyes. And those of others as well. But, and I believe this is the case, I was the only one closely involved with the Narragansett Stone who was actually hoping that Everett was correct. I have my reasons for that, having to do with the ridiculous theories that have been attached to this rock. I really hoped that Everett was right, and other principles were quite enraged with me as a result. Because Everett was intruding on their pet theories. It may not be very objective of me, but I admit, I wanted Everett to be telling the truth. And was lambasted for feeling that way.

Historian

11/22/2015 11:08:11 am

I will add two thoughts. One, I find it difficult to believe that you would simply make up the breakfast conversation with your husband, that you described. Why would you willingly be supportive of a tall tail? I don't detect a lie at all in your description. And it bothers me, because, as described below, I was not objective. I wanted Everett to be telling the truth.

The other thought is I would have kicked in $100 toward any lie detector test. Gladly. Still would. Gladly. Don't know how expensive it would actually be, however.

Finally, if any truly supportive evidence develops, I hope Everett and/or his supporters are willing to come forth with such evidence. I honestly believe Everett could have spoken to the Town Council, but he likely was not aware they were taking statements. But I would have supported his right to tell them his story and I would have been there.

You've affected me, here. I am going to ask some people why Everett was told it was "too late." I find it hard to believe his sister-in-law would make up a breakfast table conversation. I suppose it is possible the other witnesses from Pojac Point are correct, and Everett and his brother are remembering a different rock.

Lie detectors are not the most reliable testimonies, unfortunately. But I would have chipped in if I had known any of this. Some of the Pojac Point residents, including someone who says he saw the inscription on 1948, spoke at the installation. It will always be difficult to conclude "all those local residents are mistaken, all their memories are false".
But I sure as heck would have given Everett every chance to prove they were mistaken.

And I still will, if any objective supporting evidence can be brought forth. In a heartbeat.

Historian

11/22/2015 12:10:26 pm

Forgive me for being way too wordy. But, because you mistook what I meant by "the most controversial rune", I want to be sure you understand how very strange Everett's initial explanation seemed.

The first character in the second row is an X, with a short line attached to the right arm. It appears on North American runestones in Maine and Mn. Runic authorities say it dates to the late 1800's. Therefore those stones are not authentic ancient.

Everett claimed he created that controversial X by accident, when the chisel slipped. He created "the most controversial rune in America" completely by accident. And our response was "my God, what are the odds for that?!?!" But, then he changed his story to he created it deliberately, because it was a shorter version of the letter A he had used in the first line. His dad was rushing him, and a Hooked X is a version of A.

First, I must ask how would Everett even have a memory of creating it by accident because the chisel slipped? Where did that memory come from if it was not a true memory? The second explanation makes more sense, but having two different stories troubled me. And I was factoring in, as Everett himself said, that this is a 50 year memory and mistakes can creep in. But it still will affect credibility. It's inevitable.

Now, someone will say "but of course his sister-in-law supports him. She's family." Yep, can't argue with that, but I still don't believe you are lying to me about your breakfast conversation with your husband/Everett's brother.

Some proponents of an ancient origin for this stone, the Narragansett Runestone(NRS) clearly have an axe to grind. And, I believe they are terrible historians, just ridiculous unprovable claims now attached to this rock. And promoted on the so-called History Network. History my butt! So you see, I would have gladly embraced Everett's account. But his conflicting memories and the memories of 9 local residents certainly carried some weight as well.

If there was indeed a rush to dismiss Everett on the part of DEM, I'm sorry to hear it. But, at this point, we need more supportive evidence.

You certainly got my attention. And I appreciate that. My money is on "created in modern era." The same conclusion as that of Runic authority Henrik Williams of Uppsala University, Sweden. Whose words recommending preservation and public display, ironically, are on the display signage.

If Everett is telling the truth, I can only hope it is demonstrated to indeed be the truth, someday. If there was anything I could do to facilitate that actually happening, I would. I don't like some of the genuine nonsense attached to this rock by TV shows disguised as "history". Don't like it at all. It would bring me great satisfaction to see those foolish theories flushed once and for all. And the non-objective part of me was actually hoping Everett was going to accomplish that. Others were determined not to let that happen. Yet I do believe the 9 Pojac Point witnesses were being honest with their own memories. If Everett is telling the truth, then their memories are false. But not dishonest, just mistaken.

I'm too wordy. But I wanted you to see how the two explanations for how the Hooked X became the first character on the second line diminished Everett's credibility. And how did he remember the chisel slipping, and creating that Hooked X, if, in fact, as he later claimed, that never happened at all?

Nice talking with you, Josephine. I liked your brother-in-law. Of course it bothers me that he may have been truthful. And I truly wish there were someway to simply prove it. I would still chip in for a lie detector test. I honestly believe if Everett could have spoken with those 9 witnesses, then maybe he could have convinced them they could not have seen that script before 1963.

At the same time, the jury is still out for me. I don't know who carved that inscription. But I'm being honest when I say I had no pet theories to defend. Your simple statement about a breakfast conversation has indeed affected me. I would not lie in public for my brother-in-law if asked, unless his very life was on the line if I didn't lie for him. I will not call you a liar, Josephine.

steve simonds

6/25/2016 03:28:47 pm

Mr. Brown is about as believable as billy brown and his family on Alaskan Bush People

Josephine

6/25/2016 07:14:48 pm

I do not personally know Billy Brown and I take the show for what it is-entertainment
I do personally know Everett Brown (almost 35 years ) and neither he- nor my husband - are liars!!
I have to admit though my husband Warren is an unbelievably great guy and Everett- well he is unbelievably unique.
Funny thing neither one of them will be reading this since they - believe it or not- do have an interest in being on line. Ev doesn't even have a computer or cable TV. Honestly, he doesn't even care what other's think of him. It bothers me though- being eccentric and telling people the truth and not what they want to hear is NOT a BAD thing!!!
I guess he would not make it as a politician

Historian

6/30/2016 08:03:32 pm

If Everett doesn't care, then how can a case be built? Can you be certain there isn't some evidence from that time? He may not care, but why not you, if possible? If you're telling the truth as you believe it to be, I would feel the same way. It's hard to believe carrying this on, in an archived blog comment section, at this point in time as part of a yarn. So make a record, as complete as can be mustered. Convince people to contribute whatever evidence and whatever statements should be made. And then publish it in some form. Make as much as possible part of the record while people are still alive. It's not at all easy to disbelieve all the other contrary witnesses, but if you believe you know the truth despite them, then garner whatever you can and put it out there for history to judge in as thorough a form as possible. Early photos from that beach. Written about somewhere.

Clam Cake

2/3/2018 10:38:44 pm

I grew up in RI, and my father always had a boat on Narragansett Bay, docked in East Greenwich or Warwick Cove. Green River was a frequent anchorage, and I spent countless days in and around Pojac Point, every summer from early 1960's through the late 70's. My older brother and sister as well, starting in the mid 1950's. We swam, explored, climbed on all the rocks, and dug clams, which my mother boiled up in our boat's kitchen.

And even earlier, in the 1920's and 30's, my father and grandfather, who also had boats on the Bay, and a beach house in Warwick, often dug claims on Pojac Point.

My parents often talked with the people who lived in the area, and as kids we played with their children.

My father kept us entertained with legends and tails of pirates and vikings who visited Narraganset Bay, and as children we spend hours looking for Captain Kid's treasure. We knew all about the Viking Tower in Newport, Vineland, Eric the Red, and Dighton Rock. We did know that Green River had been a site of an Indian village, and arrow heads could be found.

So you can imagine how surprised I was, a few years ago, to hear about these Viking Runes in a place I knew so well.

Never in all those years had any one of us, from my grandfather on down, ever heard the slightest whisper about any carvings, let alone Viking Runes. None of us ever heard of an Indian rock.

That doesn't mean these carvings were not there. But if they were, and they were common knowledge to people living there, it seems odd that no one heard a peep about them. Not even an "Indian Rock".

I'm more inclined to believe they were not there at the time.

Historian

2/4/2018 07:46:14 pm

Well, you're right that it does not mean there was no inscription, but it's an interesting account. Did you or any of your family members know the McMahon family, especially the kids who said they called it Indian Rock because of the carvings? Can you recall that exact rock, or can anyone in your family recall it? That's probably asking a lot I know. When I recorded the inscription, (those are my 1986 photos at the Wickford location where it is today), it was really the only sizable rock on the shore just north of Scallibrini. Just wondering if you remember knowing the McMahon's specifically, since the rock was on the shore directly in front of their property. I appreciate reading your account in any event. I've gone back and forth regarding what I believe about it many times.

Clam Cake

2/4/2018 09:28:18 pm

No, sorry, don't remember any of the kid's names we played with, and never heard of McMahon's before reading about this whole affair. Just kids playing; some from the boats anchored there, some from the houses. I remember the property at the point, and I'm sure we climbed on that rock at low tide simply because we climbed on everything around there.

The carvings could have been there, covered by seaweed or barnacles. We might just not have noticed them.

But what I find so odd is that if these were known to be there, as early as 1948, there would have been at least some local buzz around the Point. I mean, it doesn't seem to be like the families that live around the point took some vow of secrecy, swore an oath never to speak of them. Got up early each morning and covered then with seaweed before the boaters arrived.

It seems to me this is exactly the kind of legends, the curiosities, known to the locals, and that the locals like to talk about with visitors.

Especially kids, when talking about pirates, Indians, and vikings.

Historian

2/4/2018 10:30:52 pm

Having having to reply to your original post, as there is no reply tab under your reply. Thanks for responding. I can tell you, if it's not already stated in this comment section earlier, that the head caretaker at Scallibrini told us he remembered a rock with inscription, (we had seen a sketch made by a quahogger who knew one of us, and had "found" the rock one day.) So his memory should put it back in the 60's, if his "20 years" was close to accurate. And that's how we were able to walk right up on it, from his directions.

It sounds like your memories, on the later end of the scale, were in a period where Brown said he carved it. 1964. It's entirely possible any surface concealment was possible at times. The day I first saw it, the barnacles actually filled them only, they stood out like neon, lol.

I can understand your puzzlement. It's possible the McMahons didn't talk about it, if their memories of its existance were from the 50's. Or anyone else who believes they saw it that early. Not sure how many there are/were.

Also possible it's remembered by locals, but exactly when is somehow "contaminated" by it's being in the news, due to its theft, Brown's story, and asking and receiving affadavits from them stating they saw it well before Brown claimed to have carved it. But, not to question them other then from the perspective that memory is just too malleable at times. We just don't have any clues. Or earlier photos of the area. I don't know when or how it became known as Quidnessett Rock, as stated at the time of its dedication in Wickford. That suggests local lore, but have no idea how that name developed or when.

If you ever recover more info from within your family/friends, old photos even would at least add to the history of the rock, my name is on the older photos at the plaque in Wickford, and you can write to me care of NEARA, they have a website, or post to this comment section and if it provides more leads, well, who knows.

I'm glad you weighed in with this. My own notion was that it might have been carved in the 40's, when Philip Means book on the Newport Tower was published, I think 1942. The rock was above the beach on dry land before the Hurricane of 38. Survivor from owner's family at that time period does not recall anything. It was a farm then. It cannot be seen in 1939 aerial views, but was above the beach. Buried? Above ground? Unknown.

A pleasure talking with you.

Historian

2/4/2018 11:07:21 pm

Wanted to add, that since I have not totally dismissed Brown at all, it's interesting that you and your family do not remember anything from the time he claims to have carved it, and much later even. The Scallibrini caretaker said in 1986, that he remembered it from "around 20 years ago". And late 70's is less then 10 years from when I first saw it, 1986. It certainly had age in 1986. I'm familiar with relative age based on weathering, and I do know they had been on the rock for some time by 1986. It does not have to be Norse, but it could date to the. 1890's, when the Kensington Stone may have been carved.

Just based on relative weathering, it was most likely there in the 50's or 60's anyway. Maybe nobody saw it. It was likely there, regardless of the reliability of the dates for the McMahon's own memories. I've seen the aerial photos, through time, from the state geologist's report on the rock, rendered shortly before it was stolen. We know it only entered the tidal zone, from higher ground, after 1939, but there is overwash on the higher ground visible in the 39 photo, overwash from the hurricane of 38, and that overwash might be coveting the rock in that photo.

Aaron

5/5/2019 08:36:41 pm

Funny you don't have a degree in geology or weathering but pretty sure it looked old. Just funny stuff right there pal

Historian

5/5/2019 11:41:08 pm

AARON, I have decades of experience judging patina on rocks and artifacts. Recognizing patina, depth of patina is something that develops from collecting and handling thousands of artifacts. I've also published several studies of petroglyph sites, rock art, in Rhode Island. So I do have a great deal of experience distinguishing old from new where rock is concerned, and carving on rock. All this comes with long years of experience. More then most archaeologists or geologists in fact. Decades of hands on in the field can't be learned in a classroom. I majored in geology originally as well.

Ed Tillman

9/6/2022 10:05:58 pm

I like to take a crack at this. I think Mr. Brown dose know something about the Narriganansett Rune Stone. But in the early 60's he is pretty young. I have work with chisels both wood and concrete/stone durning my 45 years in heavey construction. I do believe that he did chisel on rock not one but two.
He said that he work on it from 12:00 noon till about 4:30 but the NRS is not above water that long.There was a day that it was but we are talking about 14th-17th century during the Mini Iceage.
We been told that this stone was recently found. But I recall a day in my freshmen high school.I was a poor student always daydreaming and looking out the window. But when the teacher said Cowboys,indians,vikings and pirates I purkup.Straight A's the rest of the hour.
She was talking about how we got the name America. She said that there a stone on the east coast that had carvings on it and it was believe to have been carved by the Vikings and some thought it said Amerikas. This was 1969-70. She had family there. And she did bring up Amerigo Vespucci. I don't recall where it was found but I believe that this is the stone and I will show you why. But first I would like to add a statment from the late James Frankki,Runoligist.
"Each rune could have stood for a letter,a number,an entire word,or a concept.They were rich with symbolism,and interpretation of each symbol usually depended on some of the symbols around it".
We are going to look at the 9 Runes but we will also look at one more. Those that have a photo we want to look at the space before the first rune we are going to call this rune #10.
These runes are layed out in the order they are to tell a story in the Futhark Method.The first rune is an S and could mean "Illumination" from a star,the second rune has been called H and some call it G but the diagonal lines are to long for an H and on the wrong angle and they are not long enough for a G so what is it? It lookes like an oversize asterisk possible a star.
The planet Venus is also called Merica as it travels it leads those to the promise land.So I choose Merica to spell out its own name with a missing vowel E; then we have the third rune for R for journey; the fourth rune is an O for Inheritance the name before AmeriKa was Omerika the O was drop when the name change around 1362 but was needed for the story; The 5th rune is a M for sacred union; The 6th rune is believe to be an inverted L I don't believe so.In NewPort Tower there are some runes and there is a bind rune a rune made up of two two runes that bind rune is for K/R and that K looks just like the 6th rune there is a late K that has a rune like this the only differece the diagonal line is higher,it was lowered to make the bind and means guiding light; 7th rune is I for sea of ice; the 1st rune second line has been called the Hooked X but after writing twice to Scott Wolters for permission to use his copy right hooked X I did not get it, so I change the name to the Sacred X. X is the A rune and means God; the second rune same line is also an A but a later generation.and can mean Gift. So we end up with is an amigram of SEROMKIAA that if shuffled once sorted out we have A merikas the O was drop and K is the european spelling for AMERIKAS A is the God rune Gods Merikas= Amerikas
The short story "Merica leads to gift to the land of thier inheritance by the sacred union by the guiding light as it passed over the sea of ice to the sacred gift by the power of God 1342"
1342 is when Greenland became abanded. and that 10th rune some runoligist believe it to be an asterisk another star possibly the 1362 Swift-Tuttle Comet Its not a claim for a mortal king but rather a claim for God,so no name of a country would show owership.
Now back to the boy, no preteen boy could caver something that good on first try. The Futhark story works just to go for a preteen to create and the carving is just to neat. This rock was called indian rock and most thought it to say SKREALING that was what natives was called. If you want to look at something a child could have done. Look at the area of the 10th rune.He most likely thought that it didn't belong. He was just a kid and should be left alone and forgiven if he did.
There is alot more in this stone and you can get my book at Amazon paper back,hard cover and E-book. E-Book less then $10. My E-mail is eg.tillman@yahoo.com