Jump to content

Kensington Stone


rodheadlee

Recommended Posts

Did any of you watch the History Channel show tonight on the Holy Grail in America? Is the Kensigton Stone accepted now as a genuine artifact? and what about the Spirit Pond Runestones? The ledgend of the Templar Knights traveling to America? any grains of truth here?

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment

Did any of you watch the History Channel show tonight on the Holy Grail in America?

No. But it sounds like something - or something similar - which I've seen previously.

Is the Kensigton Stone accepted now as a genuine artifact?

As I recall, it was denounced, in part, because one of the rune practices in the stone was believed by experts to be anachronistic. Subsequent research demonstrated otherwise.

So no - it's not generally accepted.

But one of the barriers for accepting it has been lifted.

and what about the Spirit Pond Runestones?

Dunno. But I would suggest comparing the map on one of those stones to Yale University's Vinland Map.

The ledgend of the Templar Knights traveling to America?

Based on a number of things, I would be surprised if that item weren't true.

any grains of truth here?

Several...in my opinion.

There is reason to believe Europe had been sending out feelers across the Atlantic long before Columbus.

Centuries before Columbus, they even harbored prophecies that the land to the west would be a promised land for their descendants.

He was just the capstone and heir to their efforts/legends.

Link to comment

No I was not aware it was on. You got a link? I searched The History Channel website and nada! I would like to see it.

Also I have no doubt to it being legit. Vikings did come to N. America as evidence of settlements. They were notorious explorers and raiders. It would not be far-fetched of them sailing even farther down the coast toward the rivers of the upstate areas, and heading into the Great Lakes. The long ships had low drafts, and were very fast and sea worthy. It would not surprise me that some Norsemen getting far inland and possibly wrecking, and getting stuck in the Great Lakes areas. This would not be far-fetched. In Texas History there was a Spaniard along with a slave of how he was shipwrecked along the Texas coast and struggled among the natives until he was rescued. This was during the early Spanish exploration and he kept a diary of his life. I forgot his name though.

Link to comment

The Kensington Rune Stone is what got me interested in Scandinavian history, lo these many years ago. Its history is one of the most fascinating stories in American history, especially concerning its longtime proponent, Hjalmar Halland. The authenticity of the stone, however, is not in question. Every Scandinavianist rejects its ties to the medieval period. Still a great story.

The Spaniard was Cabeza de Vaca.

Link to comment

The Kensington Rune Stone is what got me interested in Scandinavian history, lo these many years ago. Its history is one of the most fascinating stories in American history, especially concerning its longtime proponent, Hjalmar Halland. The authenticity of the stone, however, is not in question. Every Scandinavianist rejects its ties to the medieval period. Still a great story.

The Spaniard was Cabeza de Vaca.

That is right! You struck the bell mahalo. Why do they reject such ties such as Leif Ericcson and Eric the Red?

Link to comment

That is right! You struck the bell mahalo. Why do they reject such ties such as Leif Ericcson and Eric the Red?

For many, many reasons. For example, the specific runic alphabet is somewhat anachronistic for the period as well as the regions the sojourners were purported to originate. The vocabulary is also anachronistic, incorporating several terms that date much later than the 14th century. The runes and text do match books found to be in the library of both the farmer who found it and of his close friend, both of whom also had a history of perpetrating hoaxes in Norway and in Sweden. Tests have also yielded wear patterns more consistent with a relatively recent carving, (I know of two wear studies and one metallurgical study). In addition to all this, there is no practical reason the vikings would have travelled to the region, especially so long after the Viking Age. They were too far from navigable streams and on the wrong side of the Mississippi, even for their best efforts. Finally, the colony that would have supported them had fewer than a couple dozen inhabitants in the year given, not enough to send any expeditions, build ships, or even manage their own farms.

Link to comment

Here is a link to the show on youtube.

Objection #1

Narrator:

"Who would carve a stone immediately after finding his fellow voyagers bloodied...murdered..dead?"

Well...from an LDS perspective:

1) Ether comes to mind

2) Plus the large engraved Jaredite stone.

3) Plus Moroni.

That's just off the top of my head. Perhaps there are more.

And from a broader Christian perspective:

The idea of giving the dead a respectful Christian burial, with a cross or headstone, has something of a long tradition. And it is known that the Greenlanders were Christians long before the 1300's. (Same for much of the rest of Scandinavia.) So in such a context, taking time to give the dead a decent burial/memorial doesn't sound weird in the least. It seems very much in keeping with a Christian expedition.

Objection #2

Dr. Lieberman: "Think of yourself surrounded by enemies, would you try to build a camp and get more arrows, or would you start writing a memorial stone to those ten people in an area in which absolutely no one can read it and will certainly never read. So the whole thing certainly seems to be very strange."

Yet if Lieberman is familiar with the Kingigtorssuaq runesstone...that relic is at least equally strange - off in a cold remote corner of Greenland far from where Norse Greenlanders lived....where no one in their lifetime would likely see it - a stone which is believed by most to be little more than a "Killroy was here"...yet that stone, which is equally strange, is broadly accepted as authentic.

In other words...there are hints of a double standard here.

I haven't yet reached a conclusion about the Kensington Stone...but so far, many of the arguments against it beg a few interesting questions. What are we to make of the ongoing academic attacks against people like Olof and Joseph? Dead men can't defend themselves. Cui bono indeed.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...