The Red Record

[E.P. Grondine]

Genuine evidence of contact between the Algonquians and the Vikings, sharing their sacred history.

"sacred" history. We appear to be getting to the root of your reasons for your interest in this, which appear to be religious.

Bubo, surely you must have gathered a part of this information for your database. Otherwise it would not be as "comprehensive" as you desired, nor as you claimed here that it was.

Yes, I gathered all the information in my database. If I removed the information that you did not like, it would be partial and biased.

You seem to either have being truthful confused with being "partial and biased".

[BuboAhab]

""sacred" history. We appear to be getting to the root of your reasons for your interest in this, which appear to be religious."
: Sorry, Ed. My interest in this is not "religious". Why is it hard for you to understand my interest?

"You seem to either have being truthful confused with being "partial and biased"."

:No confusion here, a partial and biased list is not a complete list.

[E.P. Grondine]

Sorry, Ed. My interest in this is not "religious". Why is it hard for you to understand my interest?

Because you have never told us the reasons for your interest.

You seem to either have being truthful confused with being "partial and biased".

No confusion here, a partial and biased list is not a complete list.

QED

[E.P. Grondine]

(Through an inadvertent keystroke I lost an earlier version of this comment, a comment which represented a considerable effort for me since my stroke. I just have to learn to accept that it was meant to be.)

In as much as my views on the Walam Olum differ from both those of Bubo and bls, I want to summarize again the reasons why for now I will hold with those Lenape elders who hold that the Walam Olum contains a "portion".

First off, my comments Oestreicher's work are based entirely on his NJAS article, and my offer for a trade with him of a copy of my book for a paper copy of his thesis still stands.

I can agree with Oestreicher that Rafinesque only worked with Lenape on a word level and not a grammatical level, and that Rafinesque engaged in "reconstruction". But extending Oestreicher's analogy, my thinking for the time being is that the situation with the Walam Olum may be (is) like having MacPherson's Ossian without having copies of the sources he used to build it.

The existence of Lenape medewak is independently attested to, and Oestreicher's claim that they did not exist is a gut issue for me, as is their fate.

(One of the infuriating things with Bubo is his lumping the Piqua artifacts together with known frauds, so they will have to be examined by others to determine whether they are frauds, real, or spurious to the issues at hand. As my own book ended at the European arrival, I know nothing about the Lenape presence at Pickawilly, particularly the when and who. Nor do I know anything about the history of these artifacts, what it might be they attest to.)

We have a Dr. Ward showing up in Pendleton (Anderson) at the right time.

Heckewelder's lists appeared at the time Rafinesque claimed to obtain a transliteration of the Walam Olum; Heckewelder's sources for these lists will have to be examined again; perhaps they were Lenape mede who held the same traditions as those given in the Walam Olum.

We have an archaeological sequence showing a Lenape migration in accord with the accounts given in the Walam Olum and the Heckewelder and Sutton fragments. (We don't know when Heckewelder obtained his fragment, nor from who.) That the "Fort Ancient" peoples were Shawnee is a gut issue for me, and this has importance as well for the Lenape, their lands at contact, and their ancestors' remains. Thus I have to differ with Oestreicher on his interpretation of the Heckewelder and Sutton fragments, and point out that to my knowledge his interpretation of them is entirely unsupported by the archaeological record.

The time Oestreicher allows Rafinesque to construct a fraud seems too short; perhaps Rainfesque used Du Poinceau's word lists to key an existing transliteration instead, and then add on to it his "reconstructions" or imaginary readings.

From my own experience, what Oestreicher presents as Rafinesque's working manuscript may likely be Rafinesque's printer manuscript instead; one which Rafinesque was trying to perfect.

Finally, we have Oestreicher's analysis of our eccentric French acquaintance's personality. Rafinesque had reasons for making his massive effort to assemble the materials supporting the world view which he held, and I am not satisfied that Oestreicher fully caught what motivated Rafinesque.

If I am permitted a closer re-examination of these matters, and I can recover the "portion" from the Walam Olum, then I will remove Rafinesque's "reconstructions', if I am able to; if no portion exists, then I will denounce Rafinesque as a fraud.

But that might not be my path, but the path of others. Whatever the case, careful re-examination of Oestreicher's work will be good exercise for graduate students for many years to come.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

[BuboAhab]

you have never told us the reasons for your interest.

:I would have mentioned that, but this forum is about the Red Record, and not about me.

[BuboAhab]

(One of the infuriating things with Bubo is his lumping the Piqua artifacts together with known frauds, so they will have to be examined by others to determine whether they are frauds, real, or spurious to the issues at hand. As my own book ended at the European arrival, I know nothing about the Lenape presence at Pickawilly, particularly the when and who. Nor do I know anything about the history of these artifacts, what it might be they attest to.)

Mr. Grondine, I do not intend to infuriate you.  Your emotional response to my research into ancient iconography is deeply rooted in your own perception. I do not share your emotional response, and find it to be unreasonable.

[E.P. Grondine]

Mr. Grondine, I do not intend to infuriate you.  Your emotional response to my research into ancient iconography is deeply rooted in your own perception. I do not share your emotional response, and find it to be unreasonable.

My perception of the Burrows ring is all too objective, Bubo.

You're claiming to be a willing victim of it, rather than an active participant, but we'll see.

In either case, I can't rely on your work on the Piqua artifacts, but will have to re-check/re-do it myself. 

[BuboAhab]

Getting back on topic, again, about the Walam Olum.
Napora was not the first to translate Chapter 1 glyph 19 of the Walam Olum as Picking Berries. It was the Indiana Historical Society that translated the glyph " ... who went to pick berries, the first food, while the young men followed them."

The word origin can be seen in the Walam Olum (1954).
[Gattamin (kahtamiinheew "she goes out to pick berries), netami (cp. Ojibwa nittam "at first"), Mitzi (miitsu "he eats"), nijini (skinnu "young man"), nantine (nootemen "he goes after")]

"Pictograph: the cluster of small circles represents berries.4 The ascending curved line conveys the idea of a road or train, 56 and the face of two colors is probably a symbolic representation of a man and woman in one element. The double ground line signifies land41 and the four-feathered headdress again shows veneration.73

Comment: Berry-picking expeditions, for many of the northern Plains tribes, were notable occasions for amatory encounters. Among the Ojibwa of the Great Lakes region kidnapping of women by men from hostile groups frequently occurred during such expeditions.  Woman's role as gatherer of wild plant foods was practically universal throughout North America."

Berries - food are represented as a small circle or group of very small circles usually attached to a line representing a stem. References :
Kohl, Johann Georg. Kitchi-Gami, Wanderings Round Lake Superior 1860 p.157, 215. http://books.google.com/books?id=gKUAAAAAMAAJ&oe=UTF-8
Salomon Julian Harris. The Book of Indian Crafts and Indian Lore, New York, 1928 p.396.
Diringer, David. The Alphabet : a Key to the History of Mankind. 1948 p.60.

Sherwin in The Viking and the Red Man comments in his translation of "Nixkam" (we are all his offspring (Rand). and Nixkamich (a grandfather, a progenitor, a forefather, an ancestor in the direct line, a parent). Rand says :
"The Micmacs have several names for God.  They call him Nixkam, which intimates that were are all his offspring.
Nixkamich signifies grandfather or progenitor. Norsak, means "the Norseman" (Sherwin).

[E.P. Grondine]

Sherwin in The Viking and the Red Man comments in his translation of "Nixkam" (we are all his offspring (Rand). and Nixkamich (a grandfather, a progenitor, a forefather, an ancestor in the direct line, a parent). Rand says :
"The Micmacs have several names for God.  They call him Nixkam, which intimates that were are all his offspring.
Nixkamich signifies grandfather or progenitor. Norsak, means "the Norseman" (Sherwin).

Bubo, to my knowledge there is no archaeological evidence of a vast Norse empire in North America. 

I also can't see what "Norsak" has to do with "Nixkam". As the peoples are ethnically distinct, I would ask you how you account for what you see as "cognates"?

But I visited Piqua, found the records of the Lenape there, so the gorgets you have shown could have been lost there in battle or in death. But I could find no record of their find - so where were they found in Piqua?

[BuboAhab]

Mr. Grondine, we are talking about linguistic evidence here, not archaeological.

Secondly, your interpretation of the linguistic evidence does not take into account all scenarios on this dilemma. For example, we have the scenario that the Algonquian culture was once the Vast empire, and its language influences spread to Norway. Then we are left which the old saying about the chicken and the egg. Which came first, the Algonquian language or the Norse? Were these languages similar because the cultures were communicating? Over 3000 cognates between the Norse languages and Algonquian dialect are shown by Sherwin. However, Was the source of the data speaking Algonquian and living in Norway by 1940?

See Moorehead's book entitled "Stone Age in North America" for an account by J.A. Rayner's excavation of the Piqua tablets. Rayner apparently sent a complete account of the excavation to Moorehead, but it was not published.

Both the Keifer Tablets and the Ketika tablets were found in Piqua.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/TABLETS/Adena/?action=view&current=keifer1.jpg

[E.P. Grondine]

Mr. Grondine, we are talking about linguistic evidence here, not archaeological.

Vince, fundamental linguistic principle: languages are spoken by people. Those people leave behind evidence of their having been there.

There is no archaeological evidence of any vast Norse empire in North America.

Secondly, your interpretation of the linguistic evidence does not take into account all scenarios on this dilemma. For example, we have the scenario that the Algonquian culture was once the Vast empire, and its language influences spread to Norway.

Same problem: no archaeological evidence of any vast Algonquin empire in Norway, to my knowledge.

Then we are left which the old saying about the chicken and the egg. Which came first, the Algonquian language or the Norse? Were these languages similar because the cultures were communicating? Over 3000 cognates between the Norse languages and Algonquian dialect are shown by Sherwin. However, Was the source of the data speaking Algonquian and living in Norway by 1940?

Again, no archaeological evidence of extensive contacts.

and mt DNA is entirely different...

You also ignored one obvious possibility: that the words pre-date any Norse/Algonquin genetic split, and go far far further back... but that would also require that those words did not change over that vast period of time.

See Moorehead's book entitled "Stone Age in North America" for an account by J.A. Rayner's excavation of the Piqua tablets. Rayner apparently sent a complete account of the excavation to Moorehead, but it was not published.

Both the Keifer Tablets and the Ketika tablets were found in Piqua.
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/TABLETS/Adena/?action=view&current=keifer1.jpg

As it is necessary to learn which area around Piqua the gorgets (not "tablets")
were excavated from, thanks for the citation.

Your Adena/Red Ochre/glacial kame "tablets" are pallettes for either tattoo pigment or blowgun poison, or for medicinal use. Their backs often show scar marks.

Two of the artifacts you show appear to have been defaced by placing fake symbols on them, which is worrisome.

Vince, I simply don't think too much of your approach to North American glyphic systems, or your approach to earlier North American symbolic systems... Your method of attacking them is both deficient and misguided, in my opinion. I also think it near certain that you will never join the ranks of the famous decipherers.

[BuboAhab]

Ed, you are changing the subject again - this time to "archaeological evidence".

Even so, start by reseading Stories In Stone, regarding Lithic Evidence from Norway.   
http://www.lithics.org/occ2.html

Compare with lithics from Illinois:
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Piney%20Creek%20Ravine/?action=view&current=FenaiaRocks1.jpg&newest=1

Review Bronze age pottery styles, find out what type of pottery the "beaker people" made, and look at their engineering structures. Then compare these lithic, pottery, and engineering styles with those of Cahokia Mounds. Compare Beakers made by beaker people with the shape of beakers at cahokia. Compare Mounds with "Barrows". Compare Wood henge at cahokia with woodhenge in England.

Again, Archaeological evidence spanning the coast all the way into europe shares similiar styles.

Now, did you take Sherwin's DNA? You are assuming their DNA is different from other people?

Your interpretation (tattoo, poison, medicine) of the stones that have engravings is a possibility. However, they could have been something else too. Conjuring stones? ancestor stones? Gaming stones? Border Stones?

Which two of the artifacts do you deem to have fake symbols? What makes you so sure, and why are you worried?

The feeling is mutual about your approach to glyphic systems. I would prefer to see all historical translations, side by side, rather than make another new proposed translation.  And I am not concerned about fame or your endorsement of my research.

[E.P. Grondine]

Ed, you are changing the subject again - this time to "archaeological evidence".

It's no change, Vince.

Even so, start by reseading Stories In Stone, regarding Lithic Evidence from Norway.   
http://www.lithics.org/occ2.html

Compare with lithics from Illinois:
http://s243.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/Marburg72/Piney%20Creek%20Ravine/?action=view&current=FenaiaRocks1.jpg&newest=1

Vince, the Norway URL link does not work.

Review Bronze age pottery styles, find out what type of pottery the "beaker people" made, and look at their engineering structures. Then compare these lithic, pottery, and engineering styles with those of Cahokia Mounds. Compare Beakers made by beaker people with the shape of beakers at cahokia. Compare Mounds with "Barrows". Compare Wood henge at cahokia with woodhenge in England.

Again, Archaeological evidence spanning the coast all the way into europe shares similiar styles.

Vince, surface appearances can be deceiving, particularly if one desperately wants to believe something.

You've kind of forgot about the radio-carbon dates for European cultures versus Native American. How many thousands of years separate European beaker cultures and Cahokia?

Rafinesque made the mistake of using what appeared to him to be comparable structures for dating, but then he didn't have radio-carbon dates, had little in the way of field reports, and was working in the early 1800's.

The technique of recycling earlier faulty work is common in "cult archaeology" circles.

Generally speaking, European long burrows have megalithic cores, and are astronomically oriented.

No ball courts nor astronomical rings have been found in Europe.

You're also ignoring African, South American, and Eastern North American henges. From what I can make out from their distribution, henges may be among mankind's most ancient constructions.

Now, did you take Sherwin's DNA? You are assuming their DNA is different from other people?

What are you talking about? The DNA differences between Norse and Native Americas are known.

Your interpretation (tattoo, poison, medicine) of the stones that have engravings is a possibility. However, they could have been something else too. Conjuring stones? ancestor stones? Gaming stones? Border Stones?

The other alternatives are not likely, given the markings on these artifacts backs.

Which two of the artifacts do you deem to have fake symbols? What makes you so sure, and why are you worried?

The two "banner stones".

The feeling is mutual about your approach to glyphic systems.

Vince, I don't remember ever speaking with you about any approach of mine to Native American glyphic systems.

Again, there is no archaeological evidence supporting your hypothesis, nor any  DNA evidence supporting your hypothesis.

The peoples' memories of European contacts were set out in my book.

[BuboAhab]

Ed - The link worked before, I guess they must be having web difficulties.

Surface appearances can be deceiving, particularly if one wants not to believe something.

I did not forget about carbon dates.  I have attempted to find a valid carbon date from Cahokia for years, and there simply is no paperwork to validate any carbon dates.  I challenge you to find any carbon date from Cahokia that is backed up by verifiable carbon dating companies. The "1000 year ago" date was a theory that was first proposed by Reed around 1963. Reed is not a reliable source because his reasoning was not scientifically sound. All the lithic evidence found at Cahokia contradicts his date. If you wish to ignore the lithic data then that is your loss.

Grondine's opinion about banner stones has no scientific basis, and they have been definitively proven authentic relics, with authentic engravings.

[E.P. Grondine]

I did not forget about carbon dates.  I have attempted to find a valid carbon date from Cahokia for years, and there simply is no paperwork to validate any carbon dates.  I challenge you to find any carbon date from Cahokia that is backed up by verifiable carbon dating companies. The "1000 year ago" date was a theory that was first proposed by Reed around 1963. Reed is not a reliable source because his reasoning was not scientifically sound. All the lithic evidence found at Cahokia contradicts his date.

Vince, why would the archaeologists at Cahokia lie about their dates? We're taking about several thousand years between European beaker culture and "Cahokia":

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

You can read about the archaeological dates for the appearance of Mississippian in my own book, along with the Natchez account of their own history.

I am pretty sure that the folks excavating in the Cahokia area have been using reputable radio-carbon dating labs. Further, they usually place their artifacts into the context of artifacts/cultures from other sites which are well dated.

My own thinking is that the complex at St. Louis (Mound City) was earlier than Cahokia, but then that was destroyed.

The big problem you have is demonstrating a transmittal chain, and so far you've demonstrated no way points.

Again, with European burrows earth was usually used to cover megalithic constructions.

Grondine's opinion about banner stones has no scientific basis, and they have been definitively proven authentic relics, with authentic engravings.

Vince, who did this authentication work on these particular banner stones?

We know they are authentic relics, it is the engravings on them which are questionable. The technique of modifying relics to increase their value is well known within the artifact collecting community.

Who found these particular items? Where did they come from? Who published them first?