Re: American Indians skin tone and the Vikings

Peter/Stephen Sjolander (
1 Oct 1995 14:58:18 GMT

This pattern is done in red brick 10 feet tall on the east outside wall
of the indian school one mile south of the 45 degree point on the east


The "@" stands for the four tribes of the dawn people.

The center post looks like a Viking ship mast.

The two large Xs look like Viking sails.

The "+" is the Viking symbol for the half way point between the pole
and the equator also found on the Kensington rune stone.

The "."s just mark position on the computer they were not there.

Peter Sjolander

In <44jc5d$> (Grant Hughes)
>In article <44bn7f$>,
(Peter/Stephen Sjolander ) says:
>>>I remember reading of early (supposed initial contacts) with groups
>>>such as the Mandan who had members with "European" features, i.e.
>>>light eyes, fair hair and paler skin. There have also been attempts
>>>to correlate certain Indiginous words to Old Norse. I remember the
>>>specific title of "The Norse-Mandan Dictionary" (rather
>>I have never heard of this Dictionary. Do you have any more
>>information about it?
>Sorry, I only remember noting it in some bibliography. But that was
>long ago and I don't remember where it was.
>>>Some have claimed the well-known Mandan rites of passage to have
>>stemmed from
>>>emulation of the Crucifiction. If this is the case, it certainly
>>>not come from the colonies (not disputed) of the Vikings who were
>>>still pagans.
>>The peak of the Viking activity in Vinland was around the year 1000.
>>This was also about the time that Christanity was introduced to the
>When you say "the peak of activity" you are implying and increase and
>decline of activity. The archeological evidence is sparce at best and
>the litero-historical evidence describes a virtual one-time event
>>>Any cultural or genetic contribution by pre-Columbian Europeans,
>>>can be assumed to be minimal.
>>>Does anyone have some concrete sources?
>>Ever heard of the Kensington Rune stone?
>Peter, haven't we had this conversation before? The Kensington Stone
>is widely (almost exclusively) considered a hoax. Besides, the
>Stone isn't a concrete source....I believe it is a chunck of
>Shield stone. :)