The Newport Tower

The Newport Tower
Medieval stone tower ... in Rhode Island. Does it look like any other Colonial structure you've seen? Recent carbon dating of the mortar indicates 1400s construction date (see post below).

The Westford Knight Sword

The Westford Knight Sword
Medieval Battle Sword ... in Westford, Massachusetts. Can anyone deny the pommel, hilt and blade punch-marked into the bedrock?

The Spirit Pond Rune Stone

The Spirit Pond Rune Stone
Medieval Inscription ... in Maine, near Popham Beach. Long passed off as a hoax, but how many people know the Runic language? And how is it that some of the Runic characters match rare runes on inscriptions found in Minnesota and Rhode Island? Carbon-dating of floorboards at nearby long house date to 1405.

The Narragansett Rune Stone

The Narragansett Rune Stone
Medieval Inscription ... in Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay. This Runic inscription is only visible for twenty minutes a day at low tide--is this also the work of a modern-day, Runic-speaking hoaxster?

The Westford Boat Stone

The Westford Boat Stone
Medieval Ship Carving ... in Westford, MA. Found near the Westford Knight site. Weathering patterns of carving are consistent with that of 600-year-old artifact. And why would a Colonial trail-marker depict a knorr, a 14th-century ship?

The Kensington Rune Stone

The Kensington Rune Stone
Medieval Inscription... in Minnesota. Forensic geology confirms the carvings predate European settlement of Minnesota--so did Runic-speaking Native Americans carve it?

The Hooked X Rune

The Hooked X Rune
Medieval Runic Character ... on inscriptions found in Maine, Minnesota and Rhode Island. But this rare rune was only recently found in Europe. This conclusively disproves any hoax theory while also linking these three artifacts together.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Rebuttal to David K. Schafer’s Westford Knight Report


Rebuttal to David K. Schafer’s Westford Knight Report
 
For a number of years, a “report” or “survey’ has been floating around the internet, purportedly written by a David K. Schafer, Curatorial Assistant for Archaeology at Harvard's Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, in which Mr. Schafer questions the validity of the so-called Westford Knight carving in Westford, Massachusetts.  I wanted to take a few minutes to respond to this report since, like many things on the internet, it seems to have taken on a life of its own.  A link to a summary of the report can be found here: http://www.ramtops.co.uk/westford.html. 

First, although the summary of Mr. Schafer’s report has been cited dozens of times, I can find no evidence the actual report exists.  If there is such a report, it has never been published or even posted on the internet.  Although the summary, which first appeared in 1998, states that the report “will be published in the Massachusetts Archaeological Society Bulletin as well as some regional publications,” 16 years have now passed; I think it safe to conclude that this was an erroneous statement.  In addition, the summary states that this was a “preliminary” report—presumably more research was needed before the report could be finalized.  (In fact, nowhere in the summary does it confirm that Mr. Schafer even visited the site—he may have been working from photographs.)  Finally, based on private correspondence I have seen, Mr. Schafer acknowledged in 2004 that his report was written in a “tongue in cheek” manner and was never intended to be made public.  In short, what has been circulating on the internet is a summary of an unpublished “preliminary” report posted by a third-party who claims to be an acquaintance of Mr. Schafer, a report that Mr. Schafer apparently later distanced himself from.

Second, many critics of the authenticity of the carving rely on Mr. Schafer’s statement that “the flat bedrock [upon which the Knight is carved] would have been buried under 1-3 feet of soil” during the 14th century because the bedrock is located in what would have then been a hardwood forest.  What Mr. Schafer failed to note is that the bedrock in question abuts an ancient Native American trail running up Prospect Hill in Westford and cutting through any such forest—it is entirely possible that frequent use of this trail would have exposed the bedrock and prevented the soil buildup described by Mr. Schafer.  Mr. Schafer was apparently unaware of this trail, which changes the area topography and presumably would have changed his analysis. 

Third, Mr. Schafer concluded with “the simple fact that the town historian has evidence that the ‘T’ was made by two local boys in the late-19th [sic] century.”  This conclusion may be ‘simple’ but it is hardly a ‘fact.’  It is apparently true that two local boys added to the carving in the late 1800s by inscribing a “peace pipe” to the area near what many believe to be the face of the Knight.  But this “peace pipe” was carved into the bedrock rather than pecked into the bedrock as was the case with the rest of the carving.  More to the point, Mr. Schafer failed to acknowledge (probably because he was unaware) that the carving was written about in the town history as a mystery of unknown origin in 1873—at a time when the oldest of the local boys in question was only a toddler.  See Elias Nason, Gazetteer of the State of Massachusetts (B.B. Russell, 1874), at page 542.  The dates simply don’t work for Mr. Schafer’s conclusion.  In fact, the 1873 reference and a later 1883 reference describe the carving as a mysterious historical oddity even then, and postulate the images were carved in the past "by some Indian artist."  Ibid.  Since the Native Americans were all forcibly removed from Westford and surrounding areas in the late 1670s, any such Native American work would presumably have to predate that decade.

Fourth, Mr. Schafer acknowledges that the sword area of the carving (what he calls a “T”) is manmade using some kind of punching or pecking technique.  He does not, as some opponents of the carving’s validity assert, claim that the entire carving is comprised only of natural striations in the bedrock.

In conclusion, it is time that scholars, researchers and members of the media stop relying on Mr. Schafer’s so-called report.  The report is flawed, factually inaccurate, incomplete and not intended for publication; it has no place in the ongoing and important debate regarding the validity of this historic artifact.  Much has been written about the Westford Knight—those who continue to rely on Mr. Schafer’s report rather than seek out more legitimate sources are being either intellectually lazy or intentionally biased.

In place of Mr. Schafer’s report, I offer an analysis of the Westford Knight carving compiled by Joseph A. Sinnott, the former Massachusetts State Geologist for twenty-two years who also served as the Director of the Massachusetts Underwater Archeology Board:

“After a lengthy and detailed study of the rock outcropping in the field it is my considered opinion that a pecked and etched image of an historical event has been employed on the bedrock.  I can discern the outline of a sword, a sailing vessel, etc.  Natural or glacial markings such as striations, grooves, polishing and weathering are all apparent on the rock but do not diminish the stature of the image placed there at a much later date.”  [Letter dated October 14, 1999, addressed to Massachusetts Historical Committee.]

As Mr. Sinnott states, the carving on the bedrock displays a historical event.  It is up to modern researchers and scholars to determine exactly what that event was.  To do so requires the use of legitimate source material.

David S. Brody
March 26, 2014

2 comments:

Lynn Brant said...

It displays an historical event, or perhaps a latter-day fantasy of some historical event. The statement of this geologist rings loud with the absence of any reference to when the carvings were made. That they were "of" a possibly centuries old event does not make them centuries old.

David Brody said...

Lynn, the purpose of this post was not to argue for or against the authenticity of the Westford Knight carving--there are many other forums where that has been and I'm sure will continue to be debated. My purpose was merely to point out the weakness of the Schafer "report" as source material as so many media sites seem to be attracted to it.