The Templar Testimony Behind Fringe History's Most Dramatic Conspiracies

3/25/2016

It was probably to be expected, but it was still surprising to read in the Facebook group devoted to J. Hutton Pulitzer’s claims about the allegedly Roman sword found on Oak Island that the technical material on Roman metallurgy found in Pulitzer’s 200-page report on the sword was copied verbatim and without acknowledgement from a dissertation by David Dungworth. Pulitzer reproduced five sections of the dissertation (with the original section numbering, despite reordering them) and used these as the basis for his analysis, comprising about one-third of the total page count for the report. I reviewed both documents, and no surprise, it is in fact the same material. Pulitzer places it under a heading of “Bibliography, Citations, and Reference Research,” so it isn’t clear to me whether he intended for pages 104-159 to be considered his work or whether he meant that as excerpts from his research supporting his “analysis.” Regardless, he does not seem to mention having had permission to reprint or rearrange the work copied for his own report.

Let me pause to point out the hypocrisy. Pulitzer threatened to sue me for fair use of a portion of a photograph of “his” sword that he declined to prove he even owned, and here he reproduced huge chunks of another person’s work without acknowledgement!

Anyway, since we’re discussing conspiracy theories, I thought I’d point out that I finally got around to completing a task I’d been meaning to get to for a long time. After a couple of years (!) I finally managed to translate the complete testimony of the Templar brother Jean de Châlons, the fellow who was the first and only historical source to allege that the Templars fled France in an armada of ships. His testimony under torture to the papal inquiry into the Templars at Poitiers in June 1308 gave rise to all of the modern Templar conspiracy theories involving trans-Atlantic travel or mysterious relocations to Scotland, so it is of great importance to understanding fringe literature. In real life, it’s also one of the most important sources for understanding the accusations that were concocted against the Templars. That’s why it’s surprising that there isn’t, to my knowledge, an English translation of the Latin text.

I think a good chunk of that is due to the fact that the Latin is exceedingly convoluted, with obscure uses of terms, legalistic formality, and pancaking layers of subjunctives that make the text difficult to read. I reviewed as many secondary sources about Jean de Châlons as I could find, many of which translated a few lines of the text, and it’s interesting that every one of the secondary authors skipped the same problematic sentences that gave me so much trouble. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that the papal authors weren’t particularly clear in those passages.

There are also a number of individuals mentioned who don’t seem to appear in any other records, including the Comte de Longpré (comes de Magno Prato; possibly the same title of Comes de Magno-prato found in the letters of Pope Alexander III in 1171), Ioannes (Jean) de Vallecutone, Reginald(us) de Cormesi, Petrus (Peter) de Brigeriis (of Brie?), and Terricus (Thierry) the Younger. The place names are untranslated because I can’t figure out what the names are supposed to refer to.

It’s ultimately not too important to understanding the meaning, but there are a few rough patches in the translation where the subjunctives made the meaning a bit unclear. I think, on the whole, that sense comes through and it’s quite clear that Jean was telling the papal inquisitors whatever they wanted to hear so he could escape punishment. So, that was it: The big secret testimony of the horrors of the Knights Templar, hidden in the Vatican Secret Archives. Big deal!

21 Comments

Time Machine

3/25/2016 02:29:56 pm

>>> testimony of the Templar brother Jean de Châlons <<<

Placed into his mouth under torture by the inquisitors

Kal

3/25/2016 02:40:44 pm

I doubt seriously that Mr. Pulitzer has any claim to a copyright case, given his blase and blatant of rooking other idea from various authors, and pictures of fake swords.

And Oak Island was never mystery. The whole thing was based on a fiction book akin to Tom Sawyer, although not as epic as Tom Sawyer.

3/25/2016 03:40:32 pm

Sadly, copyright cases don't give a rat's ass about what the plaintiff might have ripped off from elsewhere, they only concern themselves with this specific incident. You can have a blatant plagiarist who wins a copyright case on the one and only photograph they actually took themself without a blink. However, in this particular case, he wouldn't have won, because Jason's use of the photograph was clear Fair Use (ie, holding it up for criticism). Which is beside the point, because the real point of spewing out copyright infringement claims is to force other people to withdraw their criticism because the cost of an actual court case would be prohibitive.

And it worked, and will work again in the future, because the cost IS so high.

Also, I thought that the Oak Island crap was based more on poor pattern-matching; ie, some people thought they saw "evidence that this stuff was man-made" and it's really not.

Clete

3/25/2016 03:30:54 pm

I think it is possible that few, if any, fringe writers have ever had an idea or theory that wasn't first based on a theory or idea of someone else. It was simply copied and pasted, usually without acknowledgement. That seems to go back to Erich and his Von Daniken.

David Brody

3/25/2016 07:02:28 pm

Thanks for this, Jason. This is the type of work that is worthy of your time. I, for one, appreciate it. I just wish you didn't insist on seeing everything through your if-it's-fringe-it-must-be-wrong glasses.

I disagree with your unsubstantiated conclusion that "it’s quite clear that Jean was telling the papal inquisitors whatever they wanted to hear so he could escape punishment," at least as the testimony pertains to the question of the fleet sailing. The "fleet" testimony seems to me to be an afterthought, bookended by testimony (presumably in response to questioning) regarding recanting Christ. To me, as a lawyer with experience questioning witnesses, the "fleet" testimony seems credible partially because it doesn't feel like testimony the inquisitors "wanted to hear." My sense from reading this is that the inquisitors seem, rather, to have been focused mainly on the issue of recanting Christ.

Not that I expect you or any of your followers to agree with me, or even consider my argument. But thanks for allowing me to post..

Jason Colavito link

3/25/2016 07:42:14 pm

You're welcome to your conclusion, David, but one issue is that the "fleet" testimony is hearsay, which Jean claims to have heard secondhand from an unnamed source. It also is convenient in explaining how it is that important leaders of the Templars escaped the King's clutches, but more importantly also how it is that despite torture Jean and his comrades were unable to provide the King with any more of the alleged treasure of the Visitor of France, a high ranking official. From a practical standpoint, the testimony would seem a decent way of deflecting efforts to get at more Templar treasure. "No, really... They sailed away with it to parts unknown! You can stop looking now!" Or, more accurately, "You can stop torturing me to learn where it is!"

3/26/2016 02:00:13 pm

It's funny, because you often do the exact same thing you so often criticize others such as Hutton Pulitzer and Scott Wolter of doing: You vastly overstate your case. You look at this evidence, which is far from conclusive either way, and you conclude the testimony is "almost certainly a lie." It may be a lie, but it may be not--you make a decent argument when you say "the testimony would seem a decent way of deflecting efforts to get at more Templar treasure." But it's far from a certainty. The world I live in and have practiced law in is far more gray than black-and-white. You would be a lot more credible if you would at least recognize the possibility that you could be wrong once in a while, or that an occasional fringe history claim just might have a chance of being valid.

As for the testimony being hearsay, that does not necessarily make it non-probative. Much hearsay evidence is allowed in court under various hearsay exceptions.

3/26/2016 03:58:23 pm

It isn't just my conclusion, David. Every scholar I can find who has reviewed the Templar documents has come to the same conclusion. I couldn't find one who considered the passage to be likely to be true. Since my impression was that it was untrue in context, and every scholar I could find considered it to be untrue after studying the whole of the Templar record, it would appear that my qualified statement ("almost certainly" isn't the same as "is," counselor) best represented the facts and conclusions as known to me.

Only Me

3/25/2016 07:46:46 pm

Jason has touched on the main problem with the story before:

{Jean, as we can see, was repeating a secondhand story—but one that said nothing whatsoever about Templars crossing the ocean or taking a Holy Bloodline with them. It’s also important to note that in 1308 the medieval Latin word used for the ships--galea (ablative plural: galeis), from the Byzantine Greek usage—meant a small oared vessel propelled by rowing, not an oceangoing sailing ship. The idea of them as large sailing ships derives from usage after 1700, when they word became applied to some types of large warships used by the European powers. The Latin text does not immediately support the idea of a trip across the ocean.}

3/26/2016 02:07:40 pm

Thanks, Only Me. I had not seen this before. 2 points in response:

1. The fact that the Templars may not have crossed the ocean is not really the point of Jason's post or my comment. My point was that the testimony seemed credible to me, and that Jason was incorrect to dismiss it so readily.

2. Regarding the type of ship used, Jason may be correct about the interpretation of "galea" but the plain language of the sentence indicates the ships were taken out to sea with a treasure aboard: "He set out to sea with eighteen galleys and that Brother Hugues de Châlons fled with the whole treasure..." We can't simply ignore the rest of the sentence.

3/26/2016 02:25:31 pm

1. I reposted the entire paragraph to preserve context.

2. Even if 18 rowboats did leave with an alleged treasure, it would only require one seaworthy vessel to abscond with it. If we're talking 18 actual galleys, why is there no record (at present) the Templars were in possession of such a fleet? Also, if the suppression of the Templars was to claim their treasure, why didn't someone think to disable or destroy this fleet, removing the best means of possible escape?

3/26/2016 02:37:38 pm

>>>the testimony seemed credible to me

Historians have stated on numerous occasions there is no evidence that the Templars had an amount of ships as claimed in the "testimony" of Jean de Châlons

3/26/2016 02:47:17 pm

Only Me: Speculation here, but it would seem that destroying the Templar fleet would have given the Templars notice that another attack should be expected on the Paris headquarters (presumably the main focus of King Philip's strategy).

Time Machine: I have never read this claim before. My understanding of the Templars was that they had a vast fleet, as would be expected of a fighting force that often moved troops back and forth from Europe to the Middle East.

3/26/2016 03:35:09 pm

David, that would make sense, except, the fleet was alleged to have sailed away before the warrant for the Order's arrest was issued. If this fleet was in port, King Philip had to know about it. Not sending a military force to disable, destroy or take control of it would have been a huge blunder.

More importantly, when the Order was dissolved in 1312, it only had four galleys on record that were transferred to the Hospitallers. The rest of its fleet was mostly transport ships. According to historian Helen Nicholson, port records from La Rochelle show the Templars were exporting wine. Transport ships back then were unsuited for ocean voyages.

3/26/2016 04:02:23 pm

In medieval times to say one "set out to sea" didn't necessarily mean going across the ocean. Most "sea" voyages stayed close to and hugged the coast, the safest way to travel and the method in use since Antiquity. Thus, the small boats could well have "set out to sea" if that meant hugging the coast, which is to say, traveling toward Spain or Brittany.

3/26/2016 04:26:04 pm

The versions of the "crossing the Atlantic" legend I have heard usually involve the Templar fleet first sailing to Scotland, and then at a later date (1398, if you believe the Prince Henry Sinclair legend) sailing to America. So, Jason, your point that the ships would have hugged the coastline out of La Rochelle is not necessarily inconsistent with the Templars eventually taking their treasures across the Atlantic.

In any event, thanks to all for a civil and enlightening discourse. Nice to see I can come here and not have it turn into name-calling and insults.

3/26/2016 04:39:33 pm

@Jason
Good point. I forgot to mention that. That, in my opinion, reinforces your point about the meaning of galea. A warship would be more seaworthy, but if the Templars didn't own 18 of them, the interpretation of galea as meaning smaller boats makes more sense.

@David
You're welcome. It was a nice discussion.

Pacal

3/27/2016 08:49:55 am

The idea that the fleet sailed with the treasure of the Templars before Philip IV made his move faces the problem that the contemporary accounts indicate that the move was a surprise to the Templars otherwise why would so many have been taken prisoner?

Further the evidence indicates that Philip IV did in fact seize practically the whole of the Templar riches that were in France at the time and there is no evidence of any large amount of Templar treasure being shipped from France. There is however plenty of evidence that Philip IV and his advisors over estimated Templar wealth in France and thought there was more and most definitely wanted to hear that there was more. I strongly suggest reading The Trial of the Templars by Malcolm Barber which I also mentioned above for the whole sordid story.

3/27/2016 08:40:04 am

I would expect that if Jean's coerced testimony had validity that we would find further evidence of such a fleet. We do not. Further his testimony that the Templars fled flies in the face of abundant documentation that Philip IV's success in arresting and imprisoning the Templars in a carefully coordinated, surprise move. He also seized practically the whole treasury of the Templars in France. Not that many Templars escaped and certainly not a fleet of them.

But then Philip IV and his agents, working with Papal Inquisitors, (The Papacy had some misgivings about the trial early on but Philip IV soon changed that. After all he was the man who tried to kidnap a Pope and later arranged to have it move from Rome to Avignon.), was on the look out for has much Templar riches as possible and certainly the Templars apparently proved to have less wealth than Philip IV expected.

Malcolm Barber in his The Trial of Templars after going through the sources doesn't take seriously any of the fringe nonsense about the Templars, including accusations of Satan worship etc., by the Templars. He attributes their destruction mainly to Philip IV's desire for Templar gold to fund Philip's growing fiscal demands.

All in all Jean's bare statement is simply not worth taking seriously.

Mike Morgan

3/26/2016 05:42:14 am

I myself have not downloaded Pulitzer's "report", but have also read postings and comments found in: Andy's blogs @ http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog concerning SwordGate, Andy's two Facebook groups of "Fake Hercules Swords" @ https://www.facebook.com/groups/458600194323519/ & "Fraudulent Archaeology Wall of Shame" @ https://www.facebook.com/groups/149844915349213/ in particular, cursorily reading through the scans of the "report" provided by Dylan Jamieson in the "Fake Hercules Swords" group which only cover the "report" itself, as well as cursorily examining Dungworth's 1995 doctoral thesis @ http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1024/1/1024.pdf in which he states it is his doctoral thesis and has no colorized graphics and Dungworth's 1997 published paper @ http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue2/dungworth/toc.html which is an edited/rewrite of the 1995 doctoral thesis that has colorized the graphics and removed any reference as a doctoral thesis.

Because I believe we on this side adhere to higher standards and to be fair, Pulitzer may be within the scope of the "terms for use" when he reproduced/reprinted only the five sections as well as reordering/rearranging them, without being granted specific or individual permission.

Found at the bottom of the "About Us" page @ http://intarch.ac.uk/about/index.html "Except where otherwise noted, content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported licence." David Dungworth did not place any further usage terms on his paper. @ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
"You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms."

However for Pulitzer to get away with what he has done, he MUST: per "Creative Commons", "Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use" and per "Internet Archaeology", "Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s), the title of the work, the Internet Archaeology journal and the relevant URL/DOI."

Obviously with my limited partial viewing of Pulitzer's "report", I know nothing of his acknowledgements. If he followed the above terms, he may be within the usage rights granted.

But, since the only reference I noticed was calling it the "Durham University" report, clearly not a correct acknowledgement, and Pulitzer's past plagiarizing, I have little doubt that he "Huttoned" again.

Titus pullo

3/27/2016 05:37:09 pm

From what I can find regarding cargo ships of the time of the Templars story, navel architecture and engineering precluded southern ocean transits due to wide, currents, waves until the caravel was developed 100 years later. The clinker ships of the Vikings the knarrs could pass the North Atlantic by island hopping but could not sail against the wind very well. The laten sail was needed. The box based construction on the Mediterranean cargo ships of the time could not be steered or maneuvered in the Atlantic away from land. The clinker Viking ships and caravels did away with the box construction and hence were much lighter. It is an interesting topic and there is much info on the internet about navel engineering during the late Middle Ages into the age of discovery.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.