Oak Island Artifacts: Just the Facts

[Raparee]

So we can now say for a certainty that the Norse never settled anywhere in North America except l'anse meadows because there is no oral history among the Mi'kmaq or Inuit. That should help to settle a few questions.

Cheers, Loki

What a silly conclusion to draw. We can say with certainty that there is no mention of Norse in Mi'kmaq oral history. That probably would not be the case if Europeans (of whatever sort) had settled in the Mahone Bay area ... an area that was densely populated by the Mi'kmaq. Ditto for New Ross. Ditto for the Annapolis basin.

... and of coarse there is no mention of the Norse in Canada's Inuit oral history. The Inuit only arrived in Canada's eastern Arctic hundreds of years after the Vikings presence there.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Upnorth42]

Posted by Treasure 1822:
"Last but not least....Dismissing and Disrespecting, I wasn't talking about the Mi'kmaq.....I am refering to the Overton Stone and the Norumbega Vinland Stone, The "G" staone and the stone trialgle, the white granite stones with the 1/4" holes in them.....I about lost my mind when that "Expert from "Curse of Oak Island" said the "Overton Carving" was a "Treaty" with the Portuguese. The "First Nation" believed in your words not a "Stone Carving"

As for first nations people only believing in one's "word" and not a stone carving, have you not seen what has been recorded in Mi'kmaw petroglyphs in Nova Scotia? They are, in fact, history inscribed in stone. Boats with sails recording the presence of the Europeans as just one example. There is nothing, not a single thing, out of whack about the Mi'kmaw recording something of significance in stone.

There are actually 3 stones from Overton. One is in the local museum. One is out in the field and is in my opinion a fake. The third stone vanished many years ago.

 

[lokiblossom]

What a silly conclusion to draw. We can say with certainty that there is no mention of Norse in Mi'kmaq oral history. That probably would not be the case if Europeans (of whatever sort) had settled in the Mahone Bay area ... an area that was densely populated by the Mi'kmaq. Ditto for New Ross. Ditto for the Annapolis basin.

... and of coarse there is no mention of the Norse in Canada's Inuit oral history. The Inuit only arrived in Canada's eastern Arctic hundreds of years after the Vikings presence there.

Of coarse! Sorry I couldn't resist.

My point is that, because there is no oral record in either the 1st Nations of Canada or the Native Americans of the U.S. of a Norse presence, that if you or your friend Rowanns are correct that would prove the early Norse settlers never went beyond (meaning South of) l' anse meadows, am I correct? As I mentioned IMHO this would settle a lot of questions.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Apologies if this has been covered before, but it's difficult to keep the stories straight. (This was all so much simpler a few centuries before Dan Brown, when the only question about our fictitious treasure was which pirate had allegedly put it there. But pirates are soooo 1800.)

Nah. The great pirates were the ones that got in in early: Drake (d.1596), Easton, (d.1619), Avery (d.1699)

They had the great advantage of getting out when it could still be fashionable and pardoned (especially if you greased the right palms - and not coconut ones).

 

[Raparee]

Of coarse! Sorry I couldn't resist.

My point is that, because there is no oral record in either the 1st Nations of Canada or the Native Americans of the U.S. of a Norse presence, that if you or your friend Rowanns are correct that would prove the early Norse settlers never went beyond (meaning South of) l' anse meadows, am I correct? As I mentioned IMHO this would settle a lot of questions.

Cheers, Loki

I think that it would be safe to say that because there is no mention of Norse in any First Nation oral history, that if they did venture further south than Newfoundland, their trip wasn't all that significant...ie: no settlement, no castles, no stone henges.

 

[lokiblossom]

I think that it would be safe to say that because there is no mention of Norse in any First Nation oral history, that if they did venture further south than Newfoundland, their trip wasn't all that significant...ie: no settlement, no castles, no stone henges.

I think it would be foolish to completely rely on 1st Nations oral history for a small event that would have happened over 600 years ago, or in the case of the Norse, closer to a thousand. While it is true that some of these oral histories do describe actual facts, as a rule the older it was the less accurate the story. One example that gets used a lot is a year 1700 major earthquake along the American West Coast that was fairly well described by Native American tribes of the area, but this was only 300 years ago which in many opinions is pushing the limit.
I would be interested to know if anything is in the oral history of the 1st Nations concerning the very early European habitation on Cape Breton.
Cheers, Loki

 

[Raparee]

I think it would be foolish to completely rely on 1st Nations oral history for a small event that would have happened over 600 years ago, or in the case of the Norse, closer to a thousand. While it is true that some of these oral histories do describe actual facts, as a rule the older it was the less accurate the story. One example that gets used a lot is a year 1700 major earthquake along the American West Coast that was fairly well described by Native American tribes of the area, but this was only 300 years ago which in many opinions is pushing the limit.
I would be interested to know if anything is in the oral history of the 1st Nations concerning the very early European habitation on Cape Breton.
Cheers, Loki

There is a fairly accurate description of some of the events surrounding the Frobisher expedition of 1576 in the Inuit oral history. Events relating to the Franklin expedition are widely known in their oral tradition, as well. Both instances involve a much less significant event than the construction of a castle at New Ross or of whatever is suggested was built on Oak Island.

But you're right. Relying on the lack of FN record of Norse contact would be foolish. But then, there is no mention of it in recorded Norse history, nor is there any credible physical evidence of their presence in North America outside of Newfoundland and Canada's eastern Arctic.

 

[lokiblossom]

There is a fairly accurate description of some of the events surrounding the Frobisher expedition of 1576 in the Inuit oral history. Events relating to the Franklin expedition are widely known in their oral tradition, as well. Both instances involve a much less significant event than the construction of a castle at New Ross or of whatever is suggested was built on Oak Island.

But you're right. Relying on the lack of FN record of Norse contact would be foolish. But then, there is no mention of it in recorded Norse history, nor is there any credible physical evidence of their presence in North America outside of Newfoundland and Canada's eastern Arctic.

I will have to look into Frobisher's but I knew about the Inuit storys of the Franklin voyage, which of course was relatively recent. Btw, I'm sure you heard about the discoveries of his two vessels.
Cheers, Loki

 

[Raparee]

I will have to look into Frobisher's but I knew about the Inuit storys of the Franklin voyage, which of course was relatively recent. Btw, I'm sure you heard about the discoveries of his two vessels.
Cheers, Loki

Yes. They found the HMS Terror last year, and the Erebus a couple years previous.

 

[lokiblossom]

There is a fairly accurate description of some of the events surrounding the Frobisher expedition of 1576 in the Inuit oral history. Events relating to the Franklin expedition are widely known in their oral tradition, as well. Both instances involve a much less significant event than the construction of a castle at New Ross or of whatever is suggested was built on Oak Island.

I disagree, both events were very significant in their own right. Frobisher made several trips with kidnappings and murder involved while in Franklin's case the Inuit watched the whole crew die over a two year period. Also when Europeans first learned of the oral record involving Frobisher less then a couple of hundred years had passed and since then the oral record was kept alive by constant discussion about the events involved, same with the Franklin expedition. Although I still have to look into the Frobisher record.

At Charing Cross (New Ross) I have always premised a small group of Europeans arriving (Knights Templars) in a few smaller vessels and building a small non intrusive fortress. If there were no serious encounters I would think there wouldn't be much of an oral record if any, and the somewhat later arrival of historic Europeans would make the story even more convoluted.

Btw, I had forgotten that the Blacksmith Shop had been located earlier and it is not part of the stone foundations Joan discovered.

Cheers, Loki

 

[lokiblossom]

Yes. They found the HMS Terror last year, and the Erebus a couple years previous.

Yes, but they understandably won't release the locations. I have followed the Franklin story for more years then I can remember and I never thought they would find the actual vessels, both of which have their own significant histories.
Cheers, Loki

 

[Dave Rishar]

Do you honestly think the Knights Templars are a made up theoretical organization Dave?

That depends on which Templars we're talking about. Are we talking about documented Templars, or hypothetical undocumented Templars derived largely from a work of fiction?

 

[lokiblossom]

That depends on which Templars we're talking about. Are we talking about documented Templars, or hypothetical undocumented Templars derived largely from a work of fiction?

Historians agree that some 2500 Templars from France alone went unaccounted for at the time of the arrests in 1307. They did have ships in the French Atlantic port of La Rochelle that disappeared, a documented testimony claims 18 with Gerard de Villers in command. La Rochelle was a Port that an 1139 document shows they controlled btw. The 2nd in command of the Order, Master of France, and who some believe became the Grand Master after the death of "de Molay" Gerard de Villers also disappeared after which he was the most wanted man in France.
I don't think it is a work of fiction for a person to claim they know where at least a few of them went. Fiction would be like Dan Brown's novel or something wouldn't it?
Cheers, Loki

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Fiction would be placing any Templer on this side of the Atlantic.

Until such evidence otherwise can be produced.

 

[lokiblossom]

Fiction would be placing any Templer on this side of the Atlantic.

Until such evidence otherwise can be produced.

Oh Charlie, and I thought we were going to be friends!
Cheers, Loki

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Sure.

As Ronny Reagan said: "Trust, but verify."

 

[petetherocker]

Fiction would be placing any Templer on this side of the Atlantic.

Until such evidence otherwise can be produced.

Charlie for President.....oh, wait !!!

 

[Dave Rishar]

Historians agree...

Which historians?

a documented testimony claims...

A (as in one) documented testimony claims this, yes. What did the other documented testimonies claim?

...and who some believe...

And some believe that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't necessarily make it so, does it?

I don't think it is a work of fiction for a person to claim they know where at least a few of them went.

A person could rightfully claim to know where a lot of them went. It was documented, after all. Not only did someone bother to write it down, but it makes logical sense. Some went to the Hospitallers? I'll buy that, it makes sense. Some were mustered out? Why not? That makes sense too. Hell, those crazy *******s in Portugal simply changed their name and nothing else and went right doing Templar stuff? It sounds wild, but I can't find anything to contradict it; I mean, there were places were the Templars were comfortable, places where they were tolerated, and places where they had to watch their step. I wasn't there, but that's what was written and it makes sense, so why not?

I only get lost when one then draws the conclusion that they crossed the Atlantic. Besides the lack of evidence, the logic doesn't work for me.

Fiction would be like Dan Brown's novel or something wouldn't it?

It's not like anyone was discussing this idea before Dan Brown, right? I know, I know, correlation does not imply causation, but it's quite the coincidence. Before Dan, everyone was convinced that it was a pirate treasure. I mean, there were deathbed testimonies and everything. But again, that's so 1800. They were far closer to the story then than we are today, but they were primitive simpletons. We know better now, right?

 

[freeman]

You guys might as well find out what was known since Series 1.

 

[rowanns]

The Templars as an organization were never dissolved in Portugal. The king at the time just changed their name to "Knights of Christ". We know that certain early Portuguese explorers were Knights of Christ. I can't figure out what the problem is with folks not accepting this. It is historical fact. It's as though the word "Templar" is referenced and a wall goes up. There is no need for that wall to be there. Knights of Christ = Templars. I'm not stating this as a believer in immense treasures or mind blowing secrets. I'm just stating this because that's the way it is. It really should be that simple to accept. It is there in written historical records and has nothing to do with Dan Brown or Michael Bradley or whomever else folks choose to mention when attempting to dismiss what is simply a historical fact.