Jump to content

Kensington Runestone


robuchan

Recommended Posts

I watched a thing on TV about this the other night. Kind of interesting. I didn't know about this before. Apparently there was a stone found in the 1800's with carvings that made it seem like it was from the 1300's. The implication would be that Norse explorers were in the heartland of America long before anyone thought.

The arguments made in the documentary and found on the Wikipedia page are very similar to the arguments you see here on this board about the Book of Mormon. The defenders have found quite a few "bullseye" type matters that imply the stone is legitimate or there are some freakish coincidences involved. Thought it was interesting.

Link to comment

The most important question when determining the validity of the Kensington Stone is if you, yourself, could fake such an object (commonly called "The Kensington Runestone Challenge").

If the answer is "no", then you must logically support its authenticity.

Link to comment

The most important question when determining the validity of the Kensington Stone is if you, yourself, could fake such an object (commonly called "The Kensington Runestone Challenge").

If the answer is "no", then you must logically support its authenticity.

"Have you ever heard of a ritual killing? Hahahahahaha."

Come on now, name the move the quote is from.

Link to comment

I watched a thing on TV about this the other night. Kind of interesting. I didn't know about this before. Apparently there was a stone found in the 1800's with carvings that made it seem like it was from the 1300's. The implication would be that Norse explorers were in the heartland of America long before anyone thought.

The arguments made in the documentary and found on the Wikipedia page are very similar to the arguments you see here on this board about the Book of Mormon. The defenders have found quite a few "bullseye" type matters that imply the stone is legitimate or there are some freakish coincidences involved. Thought it was interesting.

An excellent book on the Kensington Stone is Alice Kehoes book The Kensington Runestone: Approaching a Research Question Holistically 2005. She feels it is authentic. Although I side just over the line on the forgery side, it would not take much for me to be persuaded to go to the authentic side.

From my studies of famous forgeries a book states this of the Kensington Stone;

The Norsemen who carved and erected the Kensington Stone, are archaeological invisible. From an archaeological perspective, it is extremely unlikely that a group of people moving through a territory could leave a detailed message in the form of the Kensington Stone without also leaving an unintentional, archaeologically trail of their journey. As a result most archaeologist conclude that the Kensington Runestone is a forgery.
This is true I do not know of any site in archaeology that has not left a trail of some kind. This is what many look for when they determine authenticity, what else did they leave what remains are to be found. For example the L'anse Meadows a verified Norseman site in Canada not only can you see the site but the many remains left behind. Even if going through and it was not an established settlement there would be small amounts of some type of trail but that has not been found. Last but not least some experts say that the stone does not fit linguistically, because some of the verbiage on the stone is notably of 16th century French origin. Now I cannot say anything on this because that is far out of my scope of study but it is there for all to see.

I think it wouldn't take much for me to wander to the side of a true Nordic find but right now I will stay on the side of fake until I see more to help establish their presence.

Just my two cents

Link to comment
I do not know of any site in archaeology that has not left a trail of some kind. This is what many look for when they determine authenticity, what else did they leave what remains are to be found.

The Etruscans come to mind.

Lehi

Link to comment

An excellent book on the Kensington Stone is Alice Kehoes book The Kensington Runestone: Approaching a Research Question Holistically 2005. She feels it is authentic. Although I side just over the line on the forgery side, it would not take much for me to be persuaded to go to the authentic side.

From my studies of famous forgeries a book states this of the Kensington Stone;

This is true I do not know of any site in archaeology that has not left a trail of some kind. This is what many look for when they determine authenticity, what else did they leave what remains are to be found. For example the L'anse Meadows a verified Norseman site in Canada not only can you see the site but the many remains left behind. Even if going through and it was not an established settlement there would be small amounts of some type of trail but that has not been found. Last but not least some experts say that the stone does not fit linguistically, because some of the verbiage on the stone is notably of 16th century French origin. Now I cannot say anything on this because that is far out of my scope of study but it is there for all to see.

I think it wouldn't take much for me to wander to the side of a true Nordic find but right now I will stay on the side of fake until I see more to help establish their presence.

Just my two cents

The Norsemen who carved and erected the Kensington Stone, are archaeological invisible. From an archaeological perspective, it is extremely unlikely that a group of people moving through a territory could leave a detailed message in the form of the Kensington Stone without also leaving an unintentional, archaeologically trail of their journey. As a result most archaeologist conclude that the Kensington Runestone is a forgery.

After 500 years what would you expect to find left by an exploration party? Do you you expect they would stop and build a pyrmid or something? It is reasonable for them to carve a marker stone but not build permanent structures. It is possible that there are other, undiscovered, marker stones in the wilds of the northeast.

Link to comment

After 500 years what would you expect to find left by an exploration party? Do you you expect they would stop and build a pyrmid or something? It is reasonable for them to carve a marker stone but not build permanent structures. It is possible that there are other, undiscovered, marker stones in the wilds of the northeast.

hi ERay,

I dunno all I can say is I have studied a lot of archeology but you might want to ask a real archaeologist such as Hashbaz or Shrff. To me 30 hardy Norseman would have camped, eaten meals, thrown away trash, discarded broken tools, lost objects all during or after carving their message. Also no remains of the 10 men killed have been found as mentioned on the stone. No 14th century artifact at all has been found other than the mention of them on the stone. Compared to other sites which have had verified sites were everysite has left a trace.

Olof Ohman who claimed he found it while clearing his field in 1898 had access to writings of alleged viking materials that had 16th century French words which were on the stone, those French words have never been found on any other writing attributed the Norse, just saying...

The possibility that the Vikings made it that far inland to me is very much plausible and we know there were Vikings in Canada even earlier than 14th century so I know it could have happened and I am close to accepting that it is true. I just want to reserve my stand until I see more to support this. It just seems there isn't that much and a little more weighs heavier on the fraudulent side that is all. I just ask to bear with my reluctance to accept it thus far a little longer.

Link to comment
Anijen

I do not know of any site in archaeology that has not left a trail of some kind. This is what many look for when they determine authenticity, what else did they leave what remains are to be found.

The Etruscans come to mind.

Lehi

Hi Lehi,

Although their isn't any textual history that remains of the Etruscans their is plenty of evidence left behind from them.

Link to comment

hi ERay,

I dunno all I can say is I have studied a lot of archeology but you might want to ask a real archaeologist such as Hashbaz or Shrff. To me 30 hardy Norseman would have camped, eaten meals, thrown away trash, discarded broken tools, lost objects all during or after carving their message. Also no remains of the 10 men killed have been found as mentioned on the stone. No 14th century artifact at all has been found other than the mention of them on the stone. Compared to other sites which have had verified sites were everysite has left a trace.

Olof Ohman who claimed he found it while clearing his field in 1898 had access to writings of alleged viking materials that had 16th century French words which were on the stone, those French words have never been found on any other writing attributed the Norse, just saying...

The possibility that the Vikings made it that far inland to me is very much plausible and we know there were Vikings in Canada even earlier than 14th century so I know it could have happened and I am close to accepting that it is true. I just want to reserve my stand until I see more to support this. It just seems there isn't that much and a little more weighs heavier on the fraudulent side that is all. I just ask to bear with my reluctance to accept it thus far a little longer.

After reading and watching what I have about the Kennsington stone I am leaning toward it being real but am not entirely convinced. Having been one who has traveled and camped in the mountains and woods of this great country for decades now I just do not accept that such a party would have to leave evidences of their having been there. I have lost watches, knives and camping gear. I am sure it is still out there but the odds of finding any of it is infinitesimaly small. Ah, but who knows maybe 500 years from now someone will find my watch or hunting knife and make up a good story about it.

Link to comment

hi ERay,

I dunno all I can say is I have studied a lot of archeology but you might want to ask a real archaeologist such as Hashbaz or Shrff. To me 30 hardy Norseman would have camped, eaten meals, thrown away trash, discarded broken tools, lost objects all during or after carving their message. Also no remains of the 10 men killed have been found as mentioned on the stone. No 14th century artifact at all has been found other than the mention of them on the stone. Compared to other sites which have had verified sites were everysite has left a trace.

My theory is that the norsemen made it that far, but their language and culture were totally subsumed by the native populations. They began to eat, speak and live like the natives, while at the same time preserving the knowledge of their runes, passing said knowledge down from generation to generation.

So archaeologists have been finding their artifacts; they just haven't recognized them as such. (Not to mention that, as shown by the doubters of the KS, most archaeologists in that area have preconceived notions that they are unwilling to discard.)

I additionally suspect God had a hand in the creation of the KS, since it serves as just enough evidence to suggest the Norsemen were there, but it's not so concrete (no pun intended) so as to rob us of our agency to believe it or not. Even when it comes to the relatively minor consideration of whether there were Vikings in ancient Minnesota, God wants us to have faith.

Link to comment

"cinepro" does that mean you are for Spanish movies or an expert on them ?

Drole sarcasm is lost on many I fear.

He's "cinepro" because he works in the movie industry.

Doesn't sound like he's being sarcastic, to me at least. I've seen his sarcasm; this doesn't have the same flavor.

Link to comment

I didn't think cinepro ever posted something that wasn't some "thinly" veiled criticism of Mormon culture, beliefs, idiosyncrasies, or whatever else you want to attach to Mormonism... I usually just respond in my head with this one:

:acute:

You cheeky monkey.

Link to comment

Doesn't sound like he's being sarcastic, to me at least. I've seen his sarcasm; this doesn't have the same flavor.

This is actually some of his best work ever. Both posts left me chuckling.

I'm painfully jealous of his cleverness.

Link to comment

He's "cinepro" because he works in the movie industry.

Doesn't sound like he's being sarcastic, to me at least. I've seen his sarcasm; this doesn't have the same flavor.

Pretty sure he's being sarcastic.

I can't remember the last time he posted something sincere.

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...