[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone

Subject: Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:36:07 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Apparently on date Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:55:33 -0500, Tom McDonald
<[email protected]> said:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> End quote
>> Not being able to "understand what my claims actually are" is one of
>> the benefits of Philip Deitiker's mode of responding to articles. I
>> suppose it is consistent with his mode of arguing.    :-(
>       OK. Thanks.
>       I looked up 'Eureka' when this all started (did nospam give a 
>link?), and so I knew something of what he meant. The Minnesota 

This one,

There are doubtless many other equally relevant websites, and I don't agree
with every word on that one anyway, but it's fine as a basis for description of
the objects and locations.

>business seemed like a bit of information not necessary to the 
>discussion, but it is what sparked my interest--until I found out 
>what he meant. His argument on this issue seems pretty uncontentious.
>       Is Phil correct to say that nospam sees all or most of the Norse 
>artifacts in the arctic as evidence of Norse trading, as opposed 
>to other methods of distribution? If so, then I'd like some 
>reference, as I don't know that that is supported in the 
>literature; although I don't know that it isn't, either.

Working from the other end first, I see the Norse (or similar) transporting
shiploads of N.American origin trade goods over to specific ports in Europe -
probably the same ports time after time. These trade goods are then distributed
to various locations by Europeans rather than the Norse.

And the Canadian end works in a similar way, the Norse bring a shipload of
European origin trade goods and go to the same sort of thing, ports in east and
west settlement, and I'm saying also the equivalent of ports in various places
where trade would happen and from that point the Inuit will be moving any
objects about.

Where there is a circle of Norse objects growing more concentrated on some
central spot, I see that as the model to point to a "trading port" likely being
at that spot. By "trading port" I don't mean to imply docks and warehouses, it
can be nothing more concrete than a beach that has become well known and the
trader will show up around the same sort of time each month, or year, or
whatever, and the Inuit will expect this, word will get around, people will
come and trade in both directions.

As for any explicit object being owned / transported by any particular person /
group, I'm not really pushing the point. At this level it is just guesswork. A
single iron blade might be owned by either group and the locals in a given
region are the most likely owners. The intriguing exception to this is a
classic trader's item, weighing scales. There are ways this can get to its
terminal location, but it does, for me, strongly suggest the presence of an
actual trader in, or not all that far away from, that location at some point,
and it is a very remote location.

If they were sailing up there, in the high arctic, then I reckon it would,
relatively speaking, be a picnic to sail Hudson Bay, around to the north and
east coasts of Ontario. That's not to say they *were*, just that they could
have been without any big changes in accepted history, as far as I can see.

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