Narragansett Bay Runestone Vanishes

[shawomet]

Happened in July, 2012. Featured in "The Hooked X" and the History Channel "documentary" The Holy Grail in America.
Found by a shell fisherman in 1984. I published an article in which the world was informed of the stones' existence as well as the first photos of the inscription. I located it based on the shell fisherman's directions, and might not have seen it at all had the incised lines not been filled in with little white barnacles, just as good as chalking it! Soon as I saw what is now called a hooked X, I knew the rock would likely cause waves since the presence of the hooked X on the Kensington stone had been used to debunk that stone as a forgery.

Sorry, had good photos of inscription and the rock in its' setting, but can't upload from my computer. This thread would be more informative with the photos, but, suffice to say, the stone, all several tons of it, was stolen. We hope to see it returned someday, as it was found below the high tide mark, belongs to the citizens of RI, and plans were in place to remove it from the bay to a safe location, as the rock was under water perhaps 20 hours of the day. One of several inscribed stones from NA that includes the controversial hooked X.

http://www.independentri.com/front/arti ... f887a.html

Ok, here's a photo prior to it's disappearance, low tide, looking NNE into Narragansett Bay. Courtesy above link.

[Minimalist]

How do you steal several tons of rock?

[shawomet]

My apologies, Minimalist. I have no clue why I failed to see your reply till now. I always assumed it was done by barge and crane, but if you saw the episode of "America Uncovered" that dealt with the Narragansett stone, and which aired on History 2 on March 1st, there is evidence it was done by land. I thought that was encouraging since there was a possibility it was going to be dumped in deeper water, and I think that's unlikely now. So maybe we shall see the rock again someday.
I don't believe it's location should have been made public knowledge when it was not in a position to be protected.

[Minimalist]

That's okay. I've pretty much given up on the History Channel anyway. They seem to have abandoned "history."

[shawomet]

That's okay. I've pretty much given up on the History Channel anyway. They seem to have abandoned "history."

I'll say. They opted for sensationalism long ago. The episode of Wolter's series dealing with the Narragansett stone was well done, but I find his theories to be too far fetched, especially his thought on the Holy Grail being the blood line of Jesus.
I just want the stone returned. The stone exists, who carved the inscription and when cannot be easily answered. I just cringe when the more speculative interpretations are applied uncritically. Maybe the hooked X is related to the Templars, maybe future generations will have techniques that would allow the characters on the rock be more accurately dated somehow, but first the rock needs to be returned and protected.

[shawomet]

Removed. Duplicate post.

[Minimalist]

Holy Grail being the blood line of Jesus.

I tend to regard grail stories as similar to Atlantis stories. A bit of fiction which some people desperately want to believe is real. Actually, that is the basis for all religion, too.

In any case, the "grail" seems to date from the late 12th century and Chretien de Troyes' tale of Parsifal.

[kbs2244]

For those that didn’t see it.
This is a 40 min YouTube video of the History Channel show
About the “Hooked X”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_DUG8-BFbI

[shawomet]

For those that didn’t see it.
This is a 40 min YouTube video of the History Channel show
About the “Hooked X”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_DUG8-BFbI

Thanks very much!

[oldarchystudent]

I'll have to check that video out when I'm not here at work. Thanks for the heads-up, Shawomet!

[shawomet]

I'll have to check that video out when I'm not here at work. Thanks for the heads-up, Shawomet!

You're welcome. I've since come across other copies on youtube should the link kbs2244 posted be taken down at some point. This page has a decent photo of the inscription:

http://westfordknight.blogspot.com/

Broke my heart when it was stolen. Easily the most exciting discovery I was ever involved with personally. The evidence suggesting it was taken by land actually improved the outlook, since if removed by barge, it might have been to just dump it in deeper water. It was not taken, as Wolter suggests in this program, because people didn't want the hooked X studied.
I believe he states that simply for drama and intrigue. At least we have photos and video. I had hoped that perhaps decades or more from now, science might have new techniques to actually get a good idea how old the incised lines are. Archaeologists leave many sites untouched in the event future generations have better tools for extracting information from a site. Anyway, all mute speculation until the stone is returned.

Here's another copy of the video. Posting from an iPad, so if it doesn't open the episode is "Unearthing America: The Templars in America". Just in case youtube removes copies...

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=PTecSCnW ... TecSCnWlQg

[shawomet]

I really found the whole Holy Grail/bloodline of Christ speculation to be a distraction and a stretch that goes way beyond any reliable facts. That said, if the hooked X did exist in Medieval Europe and was in use by certain groups, that I am fine with. That I don't reject as wildly speculative. The Narragansett stone was located at a spot difficult to access from land by Joe Citizen. It was below the water about 21 hours a day. It was located at one of the widest and open vantage points on Narragansett Bay, just south of a navigable river. If it's a modern hoax, the hoaxer put it where it might not be found in his/her lifetime. Especially since the inscription was often invisible due to algae growth. Clever hoaxer, but not impossible.
But, I'm probably a bit biased and lean toward genuine where this inscription is concerned.

[J Henkel]

The Narragansett stone was located at a spot difficult to access from land by Joe Citizen...

That is not an argument in either direction. Why would a non-hoaxer put it there? Runestones were made to be seen and read!

[shawomet]

The Narragansett stone was located at a spot difficult to access from land by Joe Citizen...

That is not an argument in either direction. Why would a non-hoaxer put it there? Runestones were made to be seen and read!

Well then, permit me to clarify. If it were a MODERN hoax, it's in an isolated location. But, sea level has risen considerably in the last 700 or so years. If genuine, 600-700 years ago it would have been WELL upon dry land and for a sailor, at one of the widest portion of the bay at the mouth of a major river. It would have been VERY visible at that time. It was the ONLY large rock on that entire section of shore. More so if it were standing upright, which its' form may have allowed. Quite frankly, it would have stood out like a sore thumb on our bay(at that particular location, plenty of rocks on our shores in general)for someone entering at the mouth of Narragansett Bay's West Passage and sailing north. So I think your argument is based on the incorrect assumption that the setting in a potential hoaxer's day is the same setting in say 1400 AD. In addition, it's in a difficult access point from land TODAY due to property ownership. In 1400, it would have been approached and seen from the water. So I don't believe your argument stands up at all once these relevant considerations are included. Besides, diffculty accessing it by land in 2013 has no bearing at all on access centuries ago by land. There is no logistical difficulty getting there, land ownership is a modern era issue.

What makes more sense? An explorer in 1400 leaves a message on a rock located by itself, without large neighboring rocks, at one of the widest points of all of Narragansett Bay, or a hoaxer leaves a message in 1950 on a rock covered by water many hours per day and where few people can access the shore by land at all? And where algae growth will often render the inscription invisible! No algae growth possible on the rock c. 1400 AD. Perhaps a hoaxer remains the path of least resistance still, as an explanation. But the constraints on the setting, in say the past hundred years, is why I believe it would be a clever hoaxer, maybe my kind of hoaxer actually. I would want it to not be too obvious. But to put it in a place where it might never be found in the hoaxer's lifetime, that's a dedicated hoaxer who's willing to not enjoy the laughs most hoaxers would look forward to enjoying I believe. I do believe the degree of weathering of the characters suggest at least several decades prior to discovery, so I suppose a potential hoaxer could be an elderly individual still. Because the hooked X is present, and because its' presence on the Kensington stone had been used to dispute that stones' age, and still is used to dispute the claims of it dating from the 14th century, it seems likely if the Narragansett Stone were a hoax, it would postdate the discovery of the Kennsington stone. I believe the earliest the Narragansett stone might have been hoaxed is in the 1840's, pre-Kensington discovery, when Rafn first popularized the notion of Viking contact in America. A team from the Rhode Island Historical Society were spurred on by communication with Rafn to investigate inscribed rocks in the Narragansett Bay area. They recorded many native petroglyph sites as a result, but not this rock of course. If the rock is modern, the earlier it was made, the less the water encroachment would have been of course. A potential hoaxer in those days might not have realized his creation would one day be completely submerged the majority of the day. And the water rise itself is certainly not proof against it being modern. Even before it's removal, in 2012, a hoaxer would have a couple of hours a day, more at extreme moon low tides.

Simply put, you have failed to take into account how the setting changed over time. The setting itself was nothing short of perfect 600-700 years ago and for a sailor coming up the West Passage of Narragansett Bay, that boulder would have appeared as a large erratic, no other large rocks near it. If it's an early inscription, it's as if the maker picked a point on the bay that offered one of the more expansive views of the bay, and right at the mouth of a navigable river, although it cannot be navigated inland for very far.

I do appreciate you raising that point, Henkel. Perfectly logical observation that required the clarification I hope I have provided you. I'm not here to state a belief in it's authenticity. I have no way of being certain. Nor do I believe anyone else has proven it predates colonial settlement in this region. However, it was a potential treasure which belongs to the citizens of my home Rhode Island. It was well below the mean high tide mark. It belonged to the People. It deserved to be preserved out of the erosive element it was in, and enjoyed and pondered over by future generations. Those plans were in place. I hope those plans are realized one day.

One final observation. The term runestone was applied to the Narragansett Stone not long after it's discovery in 1985. (actually, it was known locally at least as early as 1952, it was not "discovered" in 1985) Maybe that's unfortunate if it automatically makes people draw comparisons with runestones in Scandinavia. All we know is we have/had a stone that may have had characters incised on it by an explorer from Europe in Medieval times. I'm going to just call it the Narragansett Stone from hereon. I always preferred Narragansett Bay Stone, since it was not located in the town of Narragansett, RI.

[J Henkel]

Thanks for the clarification about the place!

But, sea level has risen considerably in the last 700 or so years.

Has it really? Or was it rather a change in shoreline and ground level due to geological processes?

Because the hooked X is present, and because its' presence on the Kensington stone had been used to dispute that stones' age, and still is used to dispute the claims of it dating from the 14th century, it seems likely if the Narragansett Stone were a hoax, it would postdate the discovery of the Kennsington stone.

All the runes used in the Kensington inscription were known in the 1880s. The age of the Kensington inscription is disputed for linguistic reasons as well as for the runes used. Most probably, the inscription cannot be older than about 1700: The runes used for the germanic umlauts ä and ö are identical to the runes for a and o - with two dots above them. This way of writing ä and ö wasn't introduced to Scandinavia before 1700. [Source: http://www2.sofi.se/daum/katta/katta15/katta15.pdf] That leaves a timeframe for the carving of the Kensington inscription between ca. 1700 and the discovery of the stone in 1898.

I have no way of being certain. Nor do I believe anyone else has proven it predates colonial settlement in this region. However, it was a potential treasure which belongs to the citizens of my home Rhode Island. It was well below the mean high tide mark. It belonged to the People. It deserved to be preserved out of the erosive element it was in, and enjoyed and pondered over by future generations.

I agree. The interesting questions remain: Who? When? Why?

Those plans were in place. I hope those plans are realized one day.

Same questions here: Who stole it, and why? Hoax or not, I hope it will be possible to recover the stone!