sci.archaeology
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone

Subject: Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
From: Eric Stevens
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:50:56 +1200
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology, soc.culture.nordic, soc.history.medieval
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:18:46 GMT, Tomi <inv@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"Franz Gnaedinger" <frgn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in 
>news:1123741565.993299.116470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>> So the story in favour of the Kensington Runestone requires
>> more elaboration. Let me try. The 40 brave men who plan
>> a royal expedition to the far west study all available old
>> reports, learn about runes, and luckily find a shipward
>> where ships are still being built in the way of the Vikings.
>
>There were shipyards building traditional ships at least up till the 15th 
>century according to a reference Soren gave. And even if there had not 
>been, they could have made aspings or - a bit more developed form - "rapids 
>boats" onsite. The know-how of how to build these lived to the 20th 
>century.
>
>> They need such a ship for exploring inland rivers and lakes.
>> Well, they go on their journey, reach the Hudson Bay, follow
>> the Nelson River, overcome rapids and falls by dragging their
>> vessel over land in the way of the ancient Greeks, 
>
>The vikings dragged their boats, too, to bypass obstacles. There is a place 
>on the British isles where the ships heading for Iceland or Ireland were 
>dragged over land (according to a TV documentary I saw). 
>
>> reach
>> Lake Winnipeg, and moor their ship on the southern shore,
>> where they build camp A. 10 men remain in camp A, guarding
>> the ship. 30 men march southward. After fourteen days they
>> arrive some twenty kilometers north of Kensington Minnesota.
>> Here they build camp B. 10 men remain in camp B. 20 men
>> march southward for another day, looking out for a river
>> or a lake where they might fish. 
>
>In fact, the area was full of lakes. There was no need to go to look for 
>one.
>
>> On the evening they build
>> camp C in the area of Kensington. On the next morning,
>> out of whatever reason, they return to camp B - where they
>> find the 10 men they left behind "red with blood and dead,"
>> apparently killed by Indians (the bubonic plague is ruled
>> out by your information that the incubation time is only
>> two to ten days). Shocked and frightened, they flee to camp
>> C, where they feel secure enough to commemorate the sad fate
>> of their comrades on a greywacke slab - in runes, which are
>> more easily carved than Roman letters and numerals. 
>
>As I wrote earlier, I don't buy this scenario. These men are afraid for 
>their lives. The enemy could be lurking behind any tree. What would you do? 
>Start hitting a stone with a hammer and chisel instead of trying to get 
>away? And why would you be carrying those rather heavy tools along, anyway?

This again raises the point that perhaps the men weren't afraid for
their lives.

The picture of a ship's carpenter carrying his highly prized chisels
into the wildeerness and then using them to hack out a message in
stone has always slightly worried me. If, as has been suggested by
Scott Wolter, the KRS was intended to mark out a land claim it may be
that it was always intended to create markers in stone and they
brought along tools for the purpose.
>
>Everything is possible but certain things just are less likely than others.
>
>Here' a competing scenario: Somebody with connections to Minnesota gets his 
>hands on a Medieval document, perhaps it reads exactly as the text on the 
>stone. This person has strong nationalistic, anti-Swedish sentiments, or 
>perhaps he just wants to make money. Maybe both. He contacts Ohman who then  
>"finds" the stone carved for the purpose.

You have to overcome obstacle of the apparent two hundred years or
more of weathering on the stone if you are to support this theory.



Eric Stevens


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>