Talk:Dighton Rock

Inscriptions
Someone should expanded this with a more detailed description of the inscriptions and the different views on interpretation. Seraphim84 14:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I clarified some of the early findings as hypotheses. The presentation was one of fact, and AFAIK none of the pre-Columbian hypotheses are more than that.  It needs attention from someone with more knowledge.Mzmadmike (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work, and thanks for bringing this point up - I'll take a crack at improving the article in a little bit. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong John Danforth
The John Danforth link points to the wrong John Danforth. There does not yet appear to be a Wikipedia article for the correct John Danforth, so I am going to un-link this. Chillowack (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

DelaBarre quotation
There seems to be a word missing from '...were even successful in making out apparent characters than have been some later observers...' Jackiespeel (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Problem is that it isn't in the source linked to it. That may be an error. Doug Weller (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (Correcting the typo against the quote)

Is the relevant document - it does not have the quote. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It does. Section II after p.408: Cotton Mather had never seen the rock, so far as we know, and this statement of his is doubtless on a par with his other statement that the characters are on "a mighty Rock." Greenwood gives the first reliable description, in 1730. He definitely says that the "indentures are not very considerable/' and his drawing and his other statements prove that he had as much difficulty in making out the real characters as has ever been experienced since then. Even on the lowest part of the face, which alone does show evident signs of much wear, Mather's raughtsman, and Greenwood, and their next followers, were even successful in making out apparent characters than have been some later observers. Sewall in 1768 and Kendall in 1807 made definite statements to the effect that the greater part of the lines were so much effaced as to make their decipherment impossible, or wholly subject to the fancy. Doug Weller (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The words I searched on did not appear in the right combinations. :) Jackiespeel (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Found. The missing word is 'less'.-- Auric   talk  21:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)