Doug,

I want to take you to task on three assertions that you have stated
below, or at least clarify them.

First that Pierre Gaultier de Varennes, sieur de La Vérendrye was
the first European to visit the Mandans. He certainly was the first
recorded visitor. The Sioux blocked passage from the south; his
trip came down from the North to the West of the Turtle Mountains,
and was to the Minot, ND area. It is commonly thought that free
traders might have passed thru the area one to two generations
before him possibly as early as 1700, but there was no evidence in
terms of the potential trade goods that would have been left behind
reported in La Verendrye's journals. He would have been keen to note
things such as these since this was after all a business trip to
scout out possible incursions of competitors (English, Spanish,
etc.) into his trading area. If you had read his journals you would
see that such information is meticulously recorded. So a suggestion
that modern Europeans were there before him is just speculation with
no basis on recorded information that has been passed down to us.

Second, that he never even made the trip is also speculation. His
journal records in detail the geography that was traversed and can
be used to retrace his steps. I know there is some minor
uncertainty about the path he followed. But if you travel due south
from Portage La Prairie Manitoba to Morden Manitoba then more or
less west to the Deloraine/Melita Area where you find the Souris
River and then south to Minot, you pretty much retrace the path he
followed. This route was taken was an established overland trade
route with natural makers and was well known to his native guides.
If you read the account of Per Kalm, it's along this route that he
found the alleged rune stone with Tartaric Script mounted on a Stone
Cairn. The report on the Garneau site is just speculation. If he
did not go, certainly one of his son's did go and would have
provided the detailed accounts we have today as they have done to
describe many other areas in Manitoba that I personally visited.

Lastly, and most importantly, about there being blacks among the
Mandans. Did all this survive the translation from French
correctly? While I have to admit that I have not read the original
account in French recently. I seem to recall that when I read it.
The original account seems to refer to the colour of the skin as
being very dark/black and could mean someone with a very dark tan,
as they might have late in the summer after spending a lot of time
in the Sun……. and not the word Negro that would refer to someone of
African Descent. In these politically correct times we seem to
have forgotten in times past that people who's descent is from West
Africa/Niger river basin, where the area from which most black
Africans came to North America as slaves, were called Negros! We
can only speculate that La Vérendrye even knew the distinction. He
only spent a few years in France and that was in Flanders and may
never have seen a Negro in his life time!

On the other hand we need to some give credit to his ability in
distinguishing a blond haired native from one that would have dark
hair. These physical traits (Black and Blond hair) were common in
the Quebecquois who were descendent from immigrants from Normandy (a
former Norse colony in France.)

He certainly should know the difference. It is certainly possible
that a free trader from Quebec may have passed by the Mandan
villages in previous generations and left behind some DNA evidence
to explain the hair colour.

That person could also have been a Templar refugee from the colony
planted in the Niagara Peninsula and wiped out by the Iroquois
Confederacy in 1535. That would lead us to a whole thread about La
Verendrye being on the search for these lost Templar refugees and
what ever treasure that they might have carried. This would give him
reason to hide information, and so on ….. but that's a whole new
area of speculation that I will not get into here as it's off topic
for this list.

I will not comment on Hilgren's other assertions about water levels,
etc. but please do not take the information concerning Pierre
Gaultier de Varennes, sieur de La Vérendrye out of context.


--- In americanrunestones@yahoogroups.com, Doug Weller <dweller@...>
wrote:
... snip....
> Anyway, before we go any further, there are various problems that
have to be faced.
> 1. There could have been Europeans there before de la Verendrye.
> 2. He might not have been there.
> 3 -- and the biggest -- do you think, if he was there, that you
can take his observations at face value? That there really were
blacks there?
...snip....
> Doug