PDA

View Full Version : Runestones of Vinland/ North America



hornedhelm
Saturday, April 16th, 2016, 02:11 AM
Having recently relocated to Oklahoma, I've had chance to visit the famous Heavener Runestone. Since seeing it, I've learned that there have been a number of other runestones and the like found scattered across the US, with Heavener and Kensington being the most well known.

Scholars disagree as to the authenticity of these. Ones found in the northeast, like Kensington and maineseem much more plausible as we are now finding settlements up and down the northeast coastline. But to go so far as Oklahoma in the midwest?

What do you guys think of these? Why would someone go through that much trouble to fake a runestone? Especially a hundred or more years ago when they were all discovered? How many people would have had even a basic level of understanding of runes, even amongst Scandinavian settlers of the time?

Ocko
Saturday, April 16th, 2016, 04:09 AM
There was scandinavian traveller in northern USA who was amazed about all the names, the native indians gave to places (as seen on road signs). He understood them perfectly as they were old-norse.

He studied it more and made comparizons between old-norse and native american words. He filled 10 volumes with them.

White tribes lived in the US at the time of 'discovery' of America.

There have been found large roads and buildings under water close to Cuba and other islands with shallow water.

In Florida are channels and other artificial waterways.

The Ing-Ka (Inka) spoke a language which was called Runa-Simi. My wife who is russian, recognized some old russians words with a associated meaning.

The Kennewick men of fame attests that there have been white people in America 7,000 years ago.

Samuel de Champlain, the 'discoverer' of Canada travelled down the St. Lorenz and at the Great Lakes met a white tribe.

Viking Sagas tell about white people in the Americas (6 day travels South West from Iceland) ((these are not about Erik the Red)).

There are too many hints that America was white a long time ago.

And connections have been there too.

Thorbrand
Saturday, April 16th, 2016, 04:40 PM
There was scandinavian traveller in northern USA who was amazed about all the names, the native indians gave to places (as seen on road signs). He understood them perfectly as they were old-norse.

He studied it more and made comparizons between old-norse and native american words. He filled 10 volumes with them.


Ocko, what is the name of these volumes or the traveller? It would be interesting to look into this.

I've read about the runestones and it seems to me that from what you are both saying there is an awful lot of smoke that must indicate some fire. I remember my delight to find carved runes on a balustrade in the Hagia Sofia, Istanbul probably left by a bored Varangian guard. Sure, it's a lot closer to home than the American continent but these were the supreme warrior-trader-explorers.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Runen_Hagia_Sophia.JPG

Ocko
Saturday, April 16th, 2016, 05:12 PM
New studies

Most doubting scientists and historians suspect that the Kensington Runestone was carved by Olof Ohman, a man of little formal education who was born in Sweden and farmed near Kensington. He claimed to have found the stone on his property, wrapped in the roots of a tree. Historians have put a great deal into the story that he wanted to pull a hoax on educated people.

But in the past year, a small group of scientists led by St. Paul geologist Scott Wolter have examined the runestone closely, including studying it with powerful microscopes in his laboratory. After investigating weathering and other features, they have concluded that the letters were carved long ago, long before Ohman's time, perhaps in Viking time.

Both the Kensington Runestone and the AVM stone probably were incised with hammer and chisel and display the ancient Scandinavian language called runes.

The AVM stone also carries the runic date of 1363 -- a year after the runestone date -- and has some runic letters, which the team speculates may stand for "Christ the Savior conquers."

One of the archaeologists conducting the dig was Mike Michlovic, professor of anthropology and earth science at Minnesota State University, Moorhead. He calls himself a skeptic about the runestone, but adds that he's willing to keep an open mind.

Historians who don't believe the runestone legend say the second rock might have been carved in 1898 or 2001 or anytime in between, but not in 1363.

Battle site?

To Westin, who found the stone, the two dates of 1362 and 1363 suggest that Vikings didn't just pass through what's now Kensington, but wintered there or at least came through a second time. Either possibility gives her the chills. Did the AVM stone mark the place where a battle took place? Or was it carved in memory of someone who died over the hard winter?

A Minneapolis stone sculptor and calligrapher, Westin, 44, is knowledgeable in the history of stone carving, which she realizes will make some suspect her of carving the AVM rock herself. (She adamantly denies that.) The team asked her last November to study the carving on the Kensington Runestone. She said she began open-minded and came to the viewpoint that the inscription is valid.

From Rense, so its somewhat not secure.

Ocko
Saturday, April 16th, 2016, 07:10 PM
Ocko, what is the name of these volumes or the traveller? It would be interesting to look into this.

I've read about the runestones and it seems to me that from what you are both saying there is an awful lot of smoke that must indicate some fire. I remember my delight to find carved runes on a balustrade in the Hagia Sofia, Istanbul probably left by a bored Varangian guard. Sure, it's a lot closer to home than the American continent but these were the supreme warrior-trader-explorers.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Runen_Hagia_Sophia.JPG




I can't the find the article I read some years ago. But I do believe the books mentioned are these:

http://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/viking-red-man-old-norse-origin-algonquin-language/

if you want to see more claimed evidence look here

http://www.frozentrail.org/



there are plenty of articles about the books

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2684571/posts


there is one type of comparison:



Michigan and Milwaukee are two examples from his books. Those are names said to be Algonquin, with Michigan meaning “middle sea basin” and Milwaukee meaning “good, beautiful land.”

In Old Norse, “midh” means “middle,” or “lying in the middle”: and “sjoe-kum” or “sjoe-kumme” means “sea basin” or “sea reservoir.”

“Lake Michigan lies midway between Lake Huron and Lake Superior, hence the translation would be correct,” Sherwin wrote.

Milwaukee, in Old Norse, is “milde aak(r)e,” meaning “the pleasant land” — an almost perfect match for the pronunciation and meaning in Algonquin, Sherwin said. Omdahl points out that in old Norwegian languages and dialects, “‘aa’ is pronounced as something between the ‘a’ in ‘war’ and the ‘o’ in ‘horse.’”

“Today it is one of the typical Scandinavian letters — an ‘a’ with a tiny ring over it,” Omdahl said.

Ocko
Saturday, April 16th, 2016, 07:32 PM
here is another good article


Norumbega, a Norse Colony in New England?
by Ron Black

Is there evidence linking Rhode Island to Vínland or another Norse colony? Paul H Chapman, author of the article "Norumbega: A Norse Colony In Rhode Island" [1], believes that the Norse settled in Rhode Island, and that after voyages to Vínland ended, they became the Narragansett Indians, emulating the styles and ways of other native Americans. However, the evidence is more speculation and hearsay than hard fact.

Chapman's cultural evidence includes the stature and skin color of the Narragansett Indians. Verrazano, who explored the area in 1524, describes the natives as "excelling us in size" and "…are of bronze color, some inclined more to whiteness…the face sharply cut". Notably, the Norse of the time (and today) are described as having sharply cut faces. To some, this could be seen as grasping at straws, but Roger Williams, founder of the Rhode Island colony, lived among the Narragansetts and reported roughly the same. Williams also recorded that the natives children were often born with white skin and red hair. He went on the say that their skin darkened from a life out doors and that their hair was dyed a darker color as they got older.

Chapman's other evidence is the advanced agricultural activaties of the Narragansetts. The other area tribes practiced nomadic hunting, while the Narragansetts lived and farmed in permanent communities, using hunting as a supplement for gathered food. The farming practices of the Narragansetts cannot be attributed to colonial era guidance since the colonists learned their farming practices from the natives.

Chapman has interpreted the name Narragansett to mean Northman settlers. He breaks the name down in this way; Nar short for NORman, stating that the Old Norse often used A for O during the development of the language, gan being the Old Norse for gang meaning walk, and sett to settle.

Existing historic and cartographic records also provide evidence of Norse settlement in this area. Two early cartographers of North America, Verrazano (1524) and Mercator (1569), place the Viking Tower of Newport, RI on their maps. While Verrazano called this location a "Norman Villa", Meractor showed the name "Norombega" as the name of this location. Mercator and other cartographers used this name for both the region and location of a local community on Narragansett Bay. The name Norombega has been broken down this way, according to Chapman: Nor meaning for Norman; um for all over; and beg for Bygd meaning an inhabited land in Old Norse. The a, at the end of the word would also be a typical suffix for Old Norse words. Other place names hailing the Nor- prefix can be found in the surrounding area. While some come from England, others are old Indian names for these areas.

Chapman's third source of evidence is the over one hundred rune stones found in New England. Three of these were found in Narragansett Bay. To this date only one has been proven a forgery, according to Chapman. He claims that the general position of the "Establishment" is that the only Norse settlement in North America was L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland. Therefore the stones found elsewhere must be fake, thus the historical community has concluded: no artifacts, no evidence, no presence.

Ocko
Saturday, April 16th, 2016, 08:42 PM
Just look at the Ulen sword, clearly a viking sword and not a modern officer's sword.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q151/JGHopkins/Forum%20Images/73815-49_1.jpg

Found in Minnesota by a farmer.

Wikipedia claims it is most likely a 19th century sword.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q151/JGHopkins/Forum%20Images/73815-7e_1.jpg

Who believes people in the 19th century fought with swords?

There is so much evidence for white settlements in the America before Columbus, the denials become more and more ridicules

SpearBrave
Saturday, April 16th, 2016, 11:54 PM
Just look at the Ulen sword, clearly a viking sword and not a modern officer's sword.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q151/JGHopkins/Forum%20Images/73815-49_1.jpg

Found in Minnesota by a farmer.

Wikipedia claims it is most likely a 19th century sword.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q151/JGHopkins/Forum%20Images/73815-7e_1.jpg

Who believes people in the 19th century fought with swords?

There is so much evidence for white settlements in the America before Columbus, the denials become more and more ridicules

That is not a Viking sword, while blade shape may resemble the Germanic swords of the late migration period ( Viking swords ). The hilt is all wrong.

They did fight with swords in the 19 century, see some US civil war examples.

Ocko
Sunday, April 17th, 2016, 02:49 AM
does it then resemble a 19th century sword`? What does it in MN_

https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M819a5cc77bd02a3e2591eb5f3a5b8 f9bo0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300

Its from ebay and the seller claims it is from civil war. Do not know whether that is true.

that is the closest civil war sword I could find and the blade is much narrower than the sword found in MN.

Most civil war swords had hand protection and look more like sabres than swords.

that is what was written in the newspaper 1880,


The following story appeared on the front page of the Preston [Fillmore county, MN] Republican on 15 Apr 1880:

--The Caledonia Argus has been shown an ancient two edged Spanish sword, 564 years old, as shown by the date arranged upon it, which was picked up in the woods, in Houston county, in 1854, lying on the ground thickly encrusted with rust. The blade of this strange weapon is twenty-four and one-half inches in length, one inch and a quarter in width at the hilt, from which it tapers gradually to the point. The blade is quite rusty, but in large ancient figures widely spread, the date "1316" is deeply engraven and plainly discernable on either side. Also on each side of the blade, about one third of its length from the hilt, are partially obliterated engravings of a knight on horseback, the design of which is extremely crude. The guard, which is nearly three inches in width, is of brass, elaborately engraved with a shield and other devices which are not decipherable. The handle mountings are also made of brass, and engraved like the hilt. This interesting relic of antiquity was found in Wilmington township, by a brother of the present owner (Bailey Webster,) who was chopping poles in a poplar thicket, when his axe accidently struck the ancient blade, which was lying on the ground under a thick covering of grass and leaves. The handle had entirely rotted away, leaving only the iron or steel center or brass trimmings. The sword is of ancient Spanish pattern, and the date engraved upon it renders its antiquity indisputable. How this ancient weapon came upon the soil of Houston county will probably further remain a mystery. Whether it was brought by some old Spanish explorer, and afterwards came in to the possession of the Indians, or whatever its origin may be, the curious may imagine for themselves.

laying on the ground though sounds suspicious.The story changed to be buried deeply in the earth and found only because the farmer ploughed deeper because of drought.

SpearBrave
Sunday, April 17th, 2016, 03:49 AM
It is a costume sword for theater use, and you can still buy them.

Here is a discussion about the said swords

https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=247692

One look at the blade could also give it away. It is of mono steel construction and Viking era swords are pattern welded with usually a wrought iron core wrapped with an edge billet of high carbon steel. There has been much research into Germanic swords of the Viking era because they were so far advanced for their time period. In my opinion the Vikings did very little of their own sword forging and instead got the blades from Frankish traders and the blades were most likely made in the Rhine valley. It is just one theory, but it seems very plausible given examples of other migration period seaxes, spears, knives and swords from the same time frame.

hornedhelm
Wednesday, April 20th, 2016, 07:37 PM
Found a lot more information on the runestones in an older post. Thought I'd link it here in case anyone is interested.

I'm gonna have to agree that where theres smoke theres fire. One or two stones here or there may be forged, but when you've got this many popping up with more and more evidence of camps and settlements they start to seem more likely.

https://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=74477

Elfriede
Thursday, April 21st, 2016, 03:27 AM
Nobody (worth their salt) in the academic community (archaeology or medieval studies) believes that the Kensington Stone is medieval. Also, there is no reason to believe that "Milwaukee" is Old Norse. There is an entire field called historical linguistics and that short amount of "evidence" is entirely unsatisfactory from any academic standpoint.

Ocko
Thursday, April 21st, 2016, 06:40 AM
Nobody (worth their salt) in the academic community (archaeology or medieval studies) believes that the Kensington Stone is medieval. Also, there is no reason to believe that "Milwaukee" is Old Norse. There is an entire field called historical linguistics and that short amount of "evidence" is entirely unsatisfactory from any academic standpoint.

Those 8 volume of language comparison contain 15,000 words.

I don't believe anything historians say anymore. If you know the 'evidence' on which history is based on you lose all respect. History is a hoax.

Prof. Fomenko stumbled over false history as he calculated celestial events in accordance to historical observation of celestial events. They are far off, so far that the whole history is a concocted story. It's simply a lie.

The history we are taught has an agenda.

Fomenko wrote a book which can be downloaded from archive.org. there he presents his findings and conclusions. Very interesting and eye opening.

Elfriede
Thursday, April 21st, 2016, 03:11 PM
Yeah, what do I know? I just have a degree and a job in the field. Guess that doesn't matter though, people with degrees aren't to be trusted. :thumbup
Stick to Fomenko if you don't trust historians, because he definitely is not one. You can't trust anything a historian will tell you, but you can trust that guy for sure.

Angus
Thursday, April 21st, 2016, 03:27 PM
I'm in class and on my mobile, but wanted to chime in. Bare with me.

I'm very familiar with rune stones and Elfriede is right; there's absolutely no evidence of these rune stones being anything but a hoax. I've yet to get a job in the field, but it's well within my area of expertise.

It's very possible that some authentic ones will be found in the future, especially with the recent discoveries within Vinland, but these aren't them. Best to move on.

hornedhelm
Thursday, April 21st, 2016, 05:27 PM
Angus and Elfriede, you may both be correct. I will concede that its unlikely at best that at least all of them are real. But like you say, I do think the new discoveries in the vinland territory increase the plausibility.

I ask you this though, why? Why would someone go through trouble to forge a runestone? What would they seek to gain from it? And how many farmers, of scandinavian upbringing or not, would have known the runes to that degree in the 17-1800s? As hard as it is to believe vikings travelled that far inland into north america, its equally as hard for me to believe there were many even amateur runic scholars in the country.

Also, the vikings were in contact with peoples from other parts of northern europe, particularly the british isles. We know that there had been a few Irish settlers as far west as Iceland prior to the scandinavian settlement. Did no one else from northern europe learn of america's existence? Did they never voyage this far west? Why does it always seem to be a runestone, not some gaelic or ogham or something similar thats discovered? I find it easier to believe that some other artifacts from northern europe would be found as opposed to say the Newark Holy Stones which are supposedly jewish.

Elfriede
Thursday, April 21st, 2016, 06:47 PM
Angus and Elfriede, you may both be correct. I will concede that its unlikely at best that at least all of them are real. But like you say, I do think the new discoveries in the vinland territory increase the plausibility.

I ask you this though, why? Why would someone go through trouble to forge a runestone? What would they seek to gain from it? And how many farmers, of scandinavian upbringing or not, would have known the runes to that degree in the 17-1800s? As hard as it is to believe vikings travelled that far inland into north america, its equally as hard for me to believe there were many even amateur runic scholars in the country.

Also, the vikings were in contact with peoples from other parts of northern europe, particularly the british isles. We know that there had been a few Irish settlers as far west as Iceland prior to the scandinavian settlement. Did no one else from northern europe learn of america's existence? Did they never voyage this far west? Why does it always seem to be a runestone, not some gaelic or ogham or something similar thats discovered? I find it easier to believe that some other artifacts from northern europe would be found as opposed to say the Newark Holy Stones which are supposedly jewish.

I understand the curiosity and, trust me, no one wants America's viking ancestry to be reinforced more than I. But it cannot be done by simply wanting to believe in something. I'm not flat-out saying that there were never vikings in NA besides the ones we already know about. There just exists no evidence for it if it did happen. Maybe it will surface in the future.

Why would someone fake a runestone? I have no idea. Why do people do anything? I think the most curious part of the story is the linguistic element... though that is what, essentially, also gives it away as a fake. In the 19th century, there was a surge of interest in Germanic philology in the academic community. Is it unlikely that this person had access to academic works being produced at the time? Sure. But what is more unlikely? Especially given that the stone has been looked at numerous times by brilliant linguists. The runes themselves have manifested in strange places throughout history. They have a tendency to do that.

I actually believe the wiki article on the stone does a good job explaining the linguistic issues with it succinctly.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Runestone )
Very basically: the language of the stone is not consistent with medieval language. It seems to sound more like someone who speaks English, trying to re-create something medieval. Unfortunately, historical linguistics is not what people think it is. It's not about saying X sounds like Y, so there must be a connection. That, honestly, is a bit insulting to linguists (not saying you are doing this, hornedhelm, my friend, but I have seen that attitude before).

hornedhelm
Thursday, April 21st, 2016, 07:32 PM
Thanks Elfriede for your posts. I've read the information you've posted about the grammatical and linguistic inconsistencies and agree they make a good case against their authentcity. I'm not blindly believing, just keepimy an open mind and posting to stir interest and debate!

Angus
Thursday, April 21st, 2016, 08:35 PM
Go figure! Elfriede has fantastically summed up every point I was going to make before I could get the chance. :D

All I'll say with fear of sounding like a broken record is that it wouldn't be first piece of "evidence" that was created as a hoax and it won't be the last. It's actually quite common. People do so to try to bring their personal version of history credibility or just to f*ck with others. Ah humanity.

I'm also a huge supporter of the notion that North America experienced a larger influx of Scandinavian explorers and settlers than we currently know. This huge Vinland flag that's hanging right behind me tells me so. :P Anyways, as most of us here already know just last month they've found another settlement south of the one at L'Anse aux Meadows and it surely won't be the last piece of evidence. As much as I wish it were true, these stones just don't match up and aren't real. Plain n' simple.

Shadow
Friday, April 22nd, 2016, 02:34 AM
Nobody (worth their salt) in the academic community (archaeology or medieval studies) believes that the Kensington Stone is medieval. Also, there is no reason to believe that "Milwaukee" is Old Norse. There is an entire field called historical linguistics and that short amount of "evidence" is entirely unsatisfactory from any academic standpoint.

I gotta go with Elfriede on this one. The alleged big breakthrough was the
(alleged) dating of this Kensington Runstone using geologic methods. Sounds good, geology, hard science, etc., right? Wrong. The geologic method was nothing known and trusted in the world of archaeology. It was a geologist named Scott Walter who compared the scratched surfaces where the runes were incised with what he claimed to be similar rocks in New England. Somehow, using the purely subjective opinion of Walter, the scratch marks were over 300 years old. Sorry, but this kind of evidence does not stand up or represent much for archaeologists. They have been burned too many times. Remember Piltdown? The method of "dating" was surprisingly similar on that one to the Kensington runestone.

It is a great story and mysterious but this whole episode does not rise to the level of accepted science, at least yet.

SpearBrave
Friday, April 22nd, 2016, 02:42 AM
what do the stones say? Has anybody done a accurate translation?

Do people find it a bit odd that these stones only appear in areas where Scandinavian people settled in the 19Th century. Perhaps they made them from memory of rune stones in their home countries? Maybe they made them to justify that this is now their homeland. Most importantly we have to face the facts that people were just as educated in the 19Th century about their passions as people are today.

Yes, it would be very cool if they were real, but I just don't buy it.

Shadow
Friday, April 22nd, 2016, 02:45 AM
what do the stones say? Has anybody done a accurate translation?

Do people find it a bit odd that these stones only appear in areas where Scandinavian people settled in the 19Th century. Perhaps they made them from memory of rune stones in their home countries? Maybe they made them to justify that this is now their homeland. Most importantly we have to face the facts that people were just as educated in the 19Th century about their passions as people are today.

Yes, it would be very cool if they were real, but I just don't buy it.

There is. It says, from memory, that several Swedes and Goths traveled to the New World and it gives the time it took. It says there was a fight (presumably with the Indians) and several men were killed.

Chlodovech
Saturday, April 23rd, 2016, 12:31 AM
Not sure what to make of Fomenko and those Russians who claim all of history as we know it is a fraud ('Charlemage never existed, he's an invention of medieval monks', 'Christ only died a 1000 years ago and the crusades followed soon afterwards', etc.)- Russia is the world capital of conspiracy theories.

But there are dozens of interesting sites across N.E. America pertaining either to the Norsemen or the the knights templar or templars coming from the Nordic countries , their origins were never fully explained but there are compelling scientific arguments which speak in favor of their authenticity. The Kensington runestone is only one piece of the puzzle, in the immediate vicinity there are other runestones, graffiti and structures. Even that sketchy looking Kensington runestone is the real deal, there's debate about the meaning of the runes, but historians simply don't know what to make of it.

In the 19th century American papers used to print red herrings without writing follow-ups, it was sensationalist journalism - there are so many different tales, including one about a hidden, lost cave in the Grand Canyon, where tons of (ancient Egyptian) artefacts and gold are stashed. Completely fabricated, no doubt. Modern researchers concluded the professor who supposedly made the discovery never existed in the first place.

Shadow
Saturday, April 23rd, 2016, 02:23 AM
There is. It says, from memory, that several Swedes and Goths traveled to the New World and it gives the time it took. It says there was a fight (presumably with the Indians) and several men were killed.

Correction, this should have been Geats, not Goths. It also gave a time frame for the trip. Sorry for the error.

Ocko
Saturday, April 23rd, 2016, 03:04 AM
Is there proof that the Kensington stone is a hoax?

Do you believe historians are honest people?

there is also more what has been ignored and hidden by historians, like giant skulls where one still has the newspaper articles and the reports they were brought to the Smithonians who never claims they are there nor do they claim they don't have them.

A degree in history for me stands on the same level as a degree in catholic religion. Its more about believe than about real science.

That the dating done of all history in the 16th century is a nut job with many inconsistencies is provable. Most likely they don't teach that in History, they believe their authorities instead of their mind.

That vikings have been in America before Columbus was also a hoax for any real historian, but what cannot be does not exist. Now there are more and more finds. the viking saga attest to it, and now also the places where they settled. Suddenly every historian claims they have been here before Columbus.

And then there exists what never happened, like the Holocaust. All with the blessing of historians.


Das Unmögliche

Palmström, etwas schon an Jahren,
wird an einer Straßenbeuge
und von einem Kraftfahrzeuge
überfahren.

»Wie war« (spricht er, sich erhebend
und entschlossen weiterlebend)
»möglich, wie dies Unglück, ja-:
daß es überhaupt geschah?

Ist die Staatskunst anzuklagen
in bezug auf Kraftfahrwagen?
Gab die Polizeivorschrift
hier dem Fahrer freie Trift?

Oder war vielmehr verboten,
hier Lebendige zu Toten
umzuwandeln, - kurz und schlicht:
Durfte hier der Kutscher nicht -?«

Eingehüllt in feuchte Tücher,
prüft er die Gesetzesbücher
und ist alsobald im klaren:
Wagen durften dort nicht fahren!

Und er kommt zu dem Ergebnis:
»Nur ein Traum war das Erlebnis.
Weil«, so schließt er messerscharf,
»nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf!«

Ocko
Saturday, April 23rd, 2016, 03:09 AM
That the language comparison contains 15,000 words and not a few with which Elfriede dismissed the case, is exactly what Morgenstern described in his poem.

15,000 similar words cannot be explained so they are ignored and one continues with his/her preaching.

Ignorance is strength.

Hammish
Saturday, April 23rd, 2016, 03:54 AM
http://sciencenordic.com/isolated-people-sweden-only-stopped-using-runes-100-years-ago

Angus
Saturday, April 23rd, 2016, 05:27 AM
Is there proof that the Kensington stone is a hoax?
Yes.


Do you believe historians are honest people?

Some people are honest, some aren't. Trade doesn't define honesty.

As far as Fomenko goes, he's a crazy man and I have never seen anyone actually give him credibility until now. Maybe you admire him because he's Russian. I was going to type more out in reply, but I didn't have the energy. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe, but doubtful.

Shadow
Saturday, April 23rd, 2016, 05:47 AM
Archaeology ascribes to being a science. In science it isn't what you believe, it is what you can prove. You can like poetry but poetry proves nothing. For the Kensington Rune Stone to be accepted as fact, someone is going to have to step up and prove it is pre-Columbian. This geologist Scott Wolter has made a TV reputation posing as an archaeologist, not a geologist. His geologic methods by which he dated this rune stone are his own, not those of geology. His method is subjective and relies on his experience and opinion, nothing which can be put into numbers and crunched. Proof is lacking and in that case nobody of good will can place his/her stamp of approval upon this.

Ocko
Saturday, April 23rd, 2016, 05:40 PM
History is under the wrath of politics, I don't think I have to prove that.

Then what History is are political correct narratives. There is no conclusive proof of anything, beside that they found something.

To proof the Kensington stone being pre-Columbian is the same as proving the Cologne Cathedral is medieval. There is no proof of both at all.

How do you proof that the foundation stones of the cathedral are from medieval time (the claim is XII century). There is none. The oldest picture showing anything about the Cologne Cathedral is from 1830 or so.

The construction documentation shows it has been built in the 1800s, on a foundation supposedly going back to the 12th/13th century. It just says so and there is no proof of it at all.

How do you proof that Charlemagne existed? Can you give me unrevertable proof of that?

history is tales, narratives which are convenient to the ruling people.

What is not convenient is rejected as hoax and what is convenient is approved without a shred of evidence.

Yes, the Kensington stone maybe a hoax, it may also be originally made by vikings living in America before Columbus' arrival.

Why it is found where Scandinavian lived? Might well be that Scandinavian tend to settle where the climate and area is similar to Scandinavia. That is why Scandinavians are mostly settled in the northern states and not in Texas. (and it is also the shortest sailing route)

Shadow
Sunday, April 24th, 2016, 09:00 PM
History is under the wrath of politics, I don't think I have to prove that.

Then what History is are political correct narratives. There is no conclusive proof of anything, beside that they found something.

To proof the Kensington stone being pre-Columbian is the same as proving the Cologne Cathedral is medieval. There is no proof of both at all.

How do you proof that the foundation stones of the cathedral are from medieval time (the claim is XII century). There is none. The oldest picture showing anything about the Cologne Cathedral is from 1830 or so.

The construction documentation shows it has been built in the 1800s, on a foundation supposedly going back to the 12th/13th century. It just says so and there is no proof of it at all.

How do you proof that Charlemagne existed? Can you give me unrevertable proof of that?

history is tales, narratives which are convenient to the ruling people.

What is not convenient is rejected as hoax and what is convenient is approved without a shred of evidence.

Yes, the Kensington stone maybe a hoax, it may also be originally made by vikings living in America before Columbus' arrival.

Why it is found where Scandinavian lived? Might well be that Scandinavian tend to settle where the climate and area is similar to Scandinavia. That is why Scandinavians are mostly settled in the northern states and not in Texas. (and it is also the shortest sailing route)

Archaeology is not politics. If the Kensington Rune Stone is not pre-Columbian, then it is a fraud. But even that is not the basic issue. As always, in science, it is proof. If there is no proof the Kensington Rune Stone is pre-Columbian, then it is not an accepted fact. The fact is the Kensington Rune Stone is not accepted as put forth. Until someone comes up with new evidence proving it is pre-Columbian, in other words dating it, the whole topic is far less credible than bigfoot or UFOs.

SpearBrave
Sunday, April 24th, 2016, 10:07 PM
Why it is found where Scandinavian lived? Might well be that Scandinavian tend to settle where the climate and area is similar to Scandinavia. That is why Scandinavians are mostly settled in the northern states and not in Texas. (and it is also the shortest sailing route)

While true in some cases Europeans settled where the climate was similar to their homelands, it is certainly not the normal settlement trend.

European settlement of areas was more based on land availability trends, family ties, and European political trends than anything else. Texas has the highest number of Germans as far as settlement goes, and there is no climate in Germany that matches Texas. Many Scandinavians settled in the Southwest part of America. Keep in mind that if you did not speak English you would be more comfortable around people who spoke your native language.

Ocko
Monday, April 25th, 2016, 01:06 AM
Archaeology is not politics. If the Kensington Rune Stone is not pre-Columbian, then it is a fraud. But even that is not the basic issue. As always, in science, it is proof. If there is no proof the Kensington Rune Stone is pre-Columbian, then it is not an accepted fact. The fact is the Kensington Rune Stone is not accepted as put forth. Until someone comes up with new evidence proving it is pre-Columbian, in other words dating it, the whole topic is far less credible than bigfoot or UFOs.

That is why I asked you the question why is Cologne Cathedral accepted to have been started in XII century without any proof that the stones are that old but with Kensington stone is not accepted but equally there is no proof.

(if you don't like the cathedral question just take for example the Akropolis in Greece. What proof do you have it is really that old?

Or take the city of Rome, no building there is older than 1,000 AD, and thats from the city administration)

That isn't science.

Either you have a standard for everything or you don't have standards.

But double standards aren't accepted

SaxonCeorl
Monday, April 25th, 2016, 02:05 AM
That is why I asked you the question why is Cologne Cathedral accepted to have been started in XII century without any proof that the stones are that old but with Kensington stone is not accepted but equally there is no proof.

(if you don't like the cathedral question just take for example the Akropolis in Greece. What proof do you have it is really that old?

Or take the city of Rome, no building there is older than 1,000 AD, and thats from the city administration)

That isn't science.

Either you have a standard for everything or you don't have standards.

But double standards aren't accepted

Huh? All of those structures have been well documented by myriad sources throughout history. Plus, there are many buildings in Rome older than 1,000 A.D. The Coliseum, The Pantheon, etc., which were written about at that time.

That's a big difference between the examples you gave and these several runestones; these runestones weren't documented until they were suddenly "discovered" in the 19th or 20th centuries. The evidence discussed upthread about the inscriptions seeming inauthentic for the proposed period would appear to weigh against them being from the Viking age.

Shadow
Monday, April 25th, 2016, 04:21 AM
That is why I asked you the question why is Cologne Cathedral accepted to have been started in XII century without any proof that the stones are that old but with Kensington stone is not accepted but equally there is no proof.

(if you don't like the cathedral question just take for example the Akropolis in Greece. What proof do you have it is really that old?

Or take the city of Rome, no building there is older than 1,000 AD, and thats from the city administration)

That isn't science.

Either you have a standard for everything or you don't have standards.

But double standards aren't accepted

The question of the starting date for the Cologne Cathedral is a historical rather than archaeological question. No scientific dating technique I know of would be suitable for such a recent structure. History is hardly science.