rr-electricangel
Greenie
My intention of this thread is to find out "where" certain statements by Rev. Polzer were first published in relation to his opinion of The Peralta Stone Maps. I am currently researching all of the professional scientific examinations done on the Peralta Stone Maps to get a better sense of how many times they have been analyzed (and by whom) since the 1960's.
What is the original source and year of the following statements? One of Polzer's books maybe? The following statements were taken out of Fools' Gold by Robert Sikorsky (pages 110-114).
"First of all, the stone surface is milled which one would hardly expect from a frontier person in the rough. The incisions were made by tools of very late and more probably early 20th century design."
"#1 is not as finely milled as #2. The 'Jesuit' is a poor rendition of a Salem witch. Both crosses on that figure are 20th century design. The lettering is typical of 20th century sanserif type fonts; the ciphers employed are of industrial design and both together are anything but colonial Spanish. The vocabulary is incorrect; but no one would consider bad orthography as proof or disproof of anything. The reverse side of #1 with the horse is weird because the draught horse shown was not exactly the kind of horse known to Spanish or Mexican immigrants in the area. As a matter of fact the horse design on the rock can be found in children's drawing books."
#2 Map with its finely milled face and neat incisions depicts some familiarity with brands and branding tools. Some of the ripple lines are reminiscent of the incisions made on stones for milling often seen in rural Mexican ranches. The crude letters depicting 'Don' on the opposite side are totally consistent with English type fonts. And if the suggestion was intended that
on' Pedro Peralta or 'Don' Miguel Peralta was indicated by this usage, one must realize that 'Don' in Spanish is never self appropriated -it is always the title of respect by someone of another. Hence it would identify nothing. It's pure poppycock."
#3 Map is about the same as #2 in the quality of the face and the nature of the incisions. But more absurd is the heart that is strictly of northern European or Anglo character. Spaniards never depicted the idea of a heart with this kind of geometry. The ciphers were also done in a post industrial age- they're not even good for 1847 if that was intended as a date. The cross on the opposite side of #3 stone is 19th century in design and had carryovers into the 20th; it's a question of what kind of exposure to design the maker had. Also the dagger or knife as depicted is a very poor portrayal of the Bowie knife and at best maintains proportions of 20th century variants of that weapon frequently found after World War 1. There are even elements in the design that indicate a knife used as a short bayonet in close combat."
"I must reserve an extensive commentary because some items not only are indicators of fraud but point to the perpetrators."
David Labay
(a.k.a. RR-ElectricAngel)
What is the original source and year of the following statements? One of Polzer's books maybe? The following statements were taken out of Fools' Gold by Robert Sikorsky (pages 110-114).
"First of all, the stone surface is milled which one would hardly expect from a frontier person in the rough. The incisions were made by tools of very late and more probably early 20th century design."
"#1 is not as finely milled as #2. The 'Jesuit' is a poor rendition of a Salem witch. Both crosses on that figure are 20th century design. The lettering is typical of 20th century sanserif type fonts; the ciphers employed are of industrial design and both together are anything but colonial Spanish. The vocabulary is incorrect; but no one would consider bad orthography as proof or disproof of anything. The reverse side of #1 with the horse is weird because the draught horse shown was not exactly the kind of horse known to Spanish or Mexican immigrants in the area. As a matter of fact the horse design on the rock can be found in children's drawing books."
#2 Map with its finely milled face and neat incisions depicts some familiarity with brands and branding tools. Some of the ripple lines are reminiscent of the incisions made on stones for milling often seen in rural Mexican ranches. The crude letters depicting 'Don' on the opposite side are totally consistent with English type fonts. And if the suggestion was intended that
on' Pedro Peralta or 'Don' Miguel Peralta was indicated by this usage, one must realize that 'Don' in Spanish is never self appropriated -it is always the title of respect by someone of another. Hence it would identify nothing. It's pure poppycock."#3 Map is about the same as #2 in the quality of the face and the nature of the incisions. But more absurd is the heart that is strictly of northern European or Anglo character. Spaniards never depicted the idea of a heart with this kind of geometry. The ciphers were also done in a post industrial age- they're not even good for 1847 if that was intended as a date. The cross on the opposite side of #3 stone is 19th century in design and had carryovers into the 20th; it's a question of what kind of exposure to design the maker had. Also the dagger or knife as depicted is a very poor portrayal of the Bowie knife and at best maintains proportions of 20th century variants of that weapon frequently found after World War 1. There are even elements in the design that indicate a knife used as a short bayonet in close combat."
"I must reserve an extensive commentary because some items not only are indicators of fraud but point to the perpetrators."
David Labay
(a.k.a. RR-ElectricAngel)
