Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Hanslune

A claim for a Norse 'Code Stone'

58 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I came across this claim while reading the comments section to Jason Colavito blog

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/newsweek-profiles-man-who-believes-an-ancient-european-ship-is-buried-in-california-big-surprise-two-cable-channels-are-doing-shows-about-it

2/4/2017 04:47:56 pm

The claim is that they have found a Norse made code rock pointing to a buried 'treasure' or point

Quote

However, for those with open minds and not instantly prepared to throw jabs, they will find that my story is well-told, with abundant photos. In addition to the Norwegian American article explaining the Norse Code-stone in general terms, I also prepared a PowerPoint presentation with many more details and photos. The presentation is available by asking for it through my website, where I can be contacted by email.

Here, also, is a photo of the ferrous-only metal detector I used. It generally costs several hundred dollars, but I got a fairly new one on Ebay for about $350. The regular metal detector is a cheaper, standard one, and, again, it will not get a hit, which means the target is too deep for it. However, the ferrous-only detector can go down several feet:

http://www.norwegianamerican.com/opinion/in-defense-of-the-kensington-runestone-a-code-stone/

What we likely have here is a fantastic reality, which may ultimately turn history as we know it on its head. What can we suppose may have been buried to represent a land claim? I like to think that since treasure represents power, something of value may have been buried, besides the usual medieval Norse artifacts, to represent a specific power, or entity.

My discovery and simple decoding of a genuine medieval Norse Code-stone shouldn't be grounds for skeptics' anger. Instead, be willing to understand what I'm saying, and be willing to look at the associated photos. Thanks for your consideration.

Does anyone have any constructive ideas that can help move this along? For one thing, I obviously need to contact even more potentially licenseable archaeologists in the MN area.

And a repeat of the link in the quote above

 

Quote

......this opinion essay is addressing the very real possibility of an attempted Scandinavian land-claim deep within America’s interior, from a probable post-Viking but pre-Kensington Runestone timeframe—roughly between AD 1050 and 1350.

http://www.norwegianamerican.com/opinion/in-defense-of-the-kensington-runestone-a-code-stone/

 

Comments?

 

 

Edited by Hanslune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I defer to those experts in the field.  Why a land claim in a sparsely populated region unless there are boundary disputes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I defer to those experts in the field.  Why a land claim in a sparsely populated region unless there are boundary disputes?

Yes the Indians didn't do land claims (they had a sense of territory though) so why would the Norse have done this was there a Norse mass movement in that area? Probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of the nations in that area were clan based; and clans did recognize some hunting and farming territories as being for the use of the clan, but I don't think they marked it.  How were farmsteads marked in Norway and Iceland?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

·-·- ··-·- -· ··- -·- ·· ·- ·--

·-· -·· ··-· · ···

Oh you said "Norse Code" my bad.

:whistle:

 

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there been an exclusion to the possibility that they were game pieces or tiles that may have been used by the tribe of red-headed giants that were known to have lived in that region.:rolleyes:

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy White's done some blog posts about this that I think hit the point nicely:

http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/how-many-norsemen-does-it-take-to-make-a-triangular-hole-in-a-rock  - such as "how do you know they were made by Norsemen?

How do you know the age?

There are informants that explain the holes as being for dynamite (one of them was someone who sharpened the chisels for those hammering the holes.)

He has a second post that mentions using the 'blasting' as the null hypothesis... and it sets up pretty nicely: http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/minnesota-stone-holes-and-the-boulder-field-quarry-hypothesis-i-dare-you-to-prove-it-wrong

The idea of an obscure code not used anywhere else that we know of and methods that are not provably Norse does not seem to fit the facts.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Has there been an exclusion to the possibility that they were game pieces or tiles that may have been used by the tribe of red-headed giants that were known to have lived in that region.:rolleyes:

jmccr8

It's pretty obvious it was a Norwegian time traveller who put the stone there, so now in 2017 Norway can clain California as part of its kingdom.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

From OP:

Quote

Here, also, is a photo of the ferrous-only metal detector I used. It generally costs several hundred dollars, but I got a fairly new one on Ebay for about $350. The regular metal detector is a cheaper, standard one, and, again, it will not get a hit, which means the target is too deep for it. However, the ferrous-only detector can go down several feet:

Quote

Finally, readers, here’s the wild card I’ve been saving for revealing this seemingly wild claim about Scandinavians visiting Minnesota during medieval times: a regular metal detector will not get a “hit” on the spot indicated by the Norse code-stone, but my ferrous-only (iron, steel) detector gets a strong hit every time. This tells us that something made of metal is buried, and quite deeply.

Why would a treasure hunter be using a ferrous only metal detector? And I recently have gotten into researching metal detectors, as I want to buy one with my tax return this year.

This appears to be a Chicago Steel Magna Trak 100 Magnetic Locator. I think this would generally be used by construction companies, and not hobbyists. 

The company specs say it can detect nominally to 20 inches. From what I've read a good (several hundred dollar) detector will easily go down 8 to 12 inches, but not likely 20 inches.

Weird choice for a treasure hunter, I'd think. I will ignore silver, gold, copper, tin, lead... basically any metal other then armor/sword that a Norseman might have with him. 

If this guy got a hit, and it nominally might be 20 inches deep, why then wouldn't he just dig it up? 

iron detector.png

 

 

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

From OP:

Why would a treasure hunter be using a ferrous only metal detector? And I recently have gotten into researching metal detectors, as I want to buy one with my tax return this year.

This appears to be a Chicago Steel Magna Trak 100 Magnetic Locator. I think this would generally be used by construction companies, and not hobbyists. 

The company specs say it can detect nominally to 20 inches. From what I've read a good (several hundred dollar) detector will easily go down 8 to 12 inches, but not likely 20 inches.

Weird choice for a treasure hunter, I'd think. I will ignore silver, gold, copper, tin, lead... basically any metal other then armor/sword that a Norseman might have with him. 

If this guy got a hit, and it nominally might be 20 inches deep, why then wouldn't he just dig it up?

 

Then the fantasy would either be real or not....plus I believe it might be on public or private land - he had some reason for not digging it up.

Edited by Hanslune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether it was private land or public land, if I believed there was a hoard of treasure, or just iron artifacts, I'd dig down a little to confirm. And then I'd talk to the landowner (if private land), or the local university (public land) to see what could be done.

What I'd NOT do is make a Youtube video of where I found a buried treasure that I had not yet dug up.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Whether it was private land or public land, if I believed there was a hoard of treasure, or just iron artifacts, I'd dig down a little to confirm. And then I'd talk to the landowner (if private land), or the local university (public land) to see what could be done.

What I'd NOT do is make a Youtube video of where I found a buried treasure that I had not yet dug up.

Yes DC but you ARE very intelligent, rational and capable of making on the ground adult decisions three characteristics/skills the other guy might not have in abundance.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Whether it was private land or public land, if I believed there was a hoard of treasure, or just iron artifacts, I'd dig down a little to confirm. And then I'd talk to the landowner (if private land), or the local university (public land) to see what could be done.

What I'd NOT do is make a Youtube video of where I found a buried treasure that I had not yet dug up.

Hi DieChecker,

Just a cautionary note or two, particularly as it would appear that you might be considering engaging in some metal detector exploration:

One must be thoroughly familiar with the applicable archaeological statutes of a given jurisdiction. In the present case, the property is in the ownership of the US state of Minnesota. A review of the relevant statutes indicates any unlicensed excavations conducted on said property would immediately put one afoul of the Minnesota Archaeological Act of 1963 (Sections 138.31, 138.32, and 138.33). Unlicensed excavations could also potentially put one afoul of the Minnesota Historic Sites Act of 1965, the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act of 1976, and Minnesota Statute 307.08. In addition, due to the proximity of the "site area" to the Pomme de Terre and Minnesota Rivers, there is the potential for a trigger of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Chapter 6120. Not to mention any applicable county ordinances.

The principal involved is obviously long on imagination, speculation, and innuendo and tragically short on worthwhile data. And his "site" is a non-factor. Nonetheless, he is fortunate enough to have been advised to contact the OSA in regards to engaging the services of a licensed archaeologist before proceeding further and risking criminal prosecution.

.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Swede said:

Hi DieChecker,

Just a cautionary note or two, particularly as it would appear that you might be considering engaging in some metal detector exploration:

One must be thoroughly familiar with the applicable archaeological statutes of a given jurisdiction. In the present case, the property is in the ownership of the US state of Minnesota. A review of the relevant statutes indicates any unlicensed excavations conducted on said property would immediately put one afoul of the Minnesota Archaeological Act of 1963 (Sections 138.31, 138.32, and 138.33). Unlicensed excavations could also potentially put one afoul of the Minnesota Historic Sites Act of 1965, the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act of 1976, and Minnesota Statute 307.08. In addition, due to the proximity of the "site area" to the Pomme de Terre and Minnesota Rivers, there is the potential for a trigger of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Chapter 6120. Not to mention any applicable county ordinances.

The principal involved is obviously long on imagination, speculation, and innuendo and tragically short on worthwhile data. And his "site" is a non-factor. Nonetheless, he is fortunate enough to have been advised to contact the OSA in regards to engaging the services of a licensed archaeologist before proceeding further and risking criminal prosecution.

.

Psfft, Egyptian feline deities say dig it up and sell it 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Swede said:

Hi DieChecker,

Just a cautionary note or two, particularly as it would appear that you might be considering engaging in some metal detector exploration:

One must be thoroughly familiar with the applicable archaeological statutes of a given jurisdiction. In the present case, the property is in the ownership of the US state of Minnesota. A review of the relevant statutes indicates any unlicensed excavations conducted on said property would immediately put one afoul of the Minnesota Archaeological Act of 1963 (Sections 138.31, 138.32, and 138.33). Unlicensed excavations could also potentially put one afoul of the Minnesota Historic Sites Act of 1965, the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act of 1976, and Minnesota Statute 307.08. In addition, due to the proximity of the "site area" to the Pomme de Terre and Minnesota Rivers, there is the potential for a trigger of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Chapter 6120. Not to mention any applicable county ordinances.

The principal involved is obviously long on imagination, speculation, and innuendo and tragically short on worthwhile data. And his "site" is a non-factor. Nonetheless, he is fortunate enough to have been advised to contact the OSA in regards to engaging the services of a licensed archaeologist before proceeding further and risking criminal prosecution.

.

All very correct so it is best not to caught doing so! However for a 20" or so exploratory hole one could claim you were digging down simply to properly dispose of human waste. Of course if this is a watershed area that is probably prohibited also.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jarocal said:

Psfft, Egyptian feline deities say dig it up and sell it 

Which brings up an aspect that many may not be aware of. Relatively recent studies have been conducted in regards to the monetary value of the illicit trade in artifacts. It was found that the black-market trade in artifacts (and the inherent looting and destruction of irreplaceable resources) exceeded the monetary value of the global drug trade. When one considers the staggering extent of the illegal drug trade, such figures are quite disturbing. 

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

All very correct so it is best not to caught doing so! However for a 20" or so exploratory hole one could claim you were digging down simply to properly dispose of human waste. Of course if this is a watershed area that is probably prohibited also.

Chuckle! At least hypothetically. Though the reality is that looters are not uncommonly apprehended with various accoutrements such as would be suggested in the present case. The combination of shovels, metal detectors, potential screens, artifact bags/containers, etc. may be rather difficult to argue past.

Not to mention that the purported site area would not appear to be open to camping, nor, based upon the provided photographs, would it be desirable for such. As you are well aware, archaeological forensics can take a number of forms (!).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

22 hours ago, Swede said:

Hi DieChecker,

Just a cautionary note or two, particularly as it would appear that you might be considering engaging in some metal detector exploration:

One must be thoroughly familiar with the applicable archaeological statutes of a given jurisdiction. In the present case, the property is in the ownership of the US state of Minnesota. A review of the relevant statutes indicates any unlicensed excavations conducted on said property would immediately put one afoul of the Minnesota Archaeological Act of 1963 (Sections 138.31, 138.32, and 138.33). Unlicensed excavations could also potentially put one afoul of the Minnesota Historic Sites Act of 1965, the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act of 1976, and Minnesota Statute 307.08. In addition, due to the proximity of the "site area" to the Pomme de Terre and Minnesota Rivers, there is the potential for a trigger of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Chapter 6120. Not to mention any applicable county ordinances.

The principal involved is obviously long on imagination, speculation, and innuendo and tragically short on worthwhile data. And his "site" is a non-factor. Nonetheless, he is fortunate enough to have been advised to contact the OSA in regards to engaging the services of a licensed archaeologist before proceeding further and risking criminal prosecution.

.

I'd agree that one should know the law regarding local land use. Shouldn't most of those laws show restrictions involved in different Registries? If you're metal detecting, and come across an unmarked grave, you've not automatically committed a crime, unless you pillage it, of course. If you find a 1950s penny, I don't suspect the entire weight of the Minnesota Archaeological Act is going to come down on you.

EDIT: A quick read does seem to show that the above laws generally apply only to known "Sites". I don't know if the OP location is a historic site, or not. If it is just a hilltop, then there's nothing preventing him from digging based on what I read. 138.33 does say that if someone discovers a site, they should report it. That is probably what he should do, if he believes his discovery is real.

 

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I'd agree that one should know the law regarding local land use. Shouldn't most of those laws show restrictions involved in different Registries? If you're metal detecting, and come across an unmarked grave, you've not automatically committed a crime, unless you pillage it, of course. If you find a 1950s penny, I don't suspect the entire weight of the Minnesota Archaeological Act is going to come down on you.

EDIT: A quick read does seem to show that the above laws generally apply only to known "Sites". I don't know if the OP location is a historic site, or not. If it is just a hilltop, then there's nothing preventing him from digging based on what I read. 138.33 does say that if someone discovers a site, they should report it. That is probably what he should do, if he believes his discovery is real.

 

Hi Diechecker,

As previously noted, a thorough understanding of the statutes and their interpretation(s) are important. As we are using the Minnesota statutes as an example, let us explore further: Section 138.31 expressly states:

(§138.31) Defines a "state site" as a land or water area, owned or leased by or subject to the paramount right of the state, county, township or municipality where there are objects or other evidence of archeological interest, including all aboriginal mounds and earthworks, ancient burial grounds, prehistoric ruins, historical remains and other archeological features on state land or on land subject to the paramount rights of the state. Excludes bottles or ceramics manufactured after 1875 from the definition of historical remains.

The above does not specify currently known sites, but would be interpreted to include any sites, known or unknown, under state jurisdiction. This interpretation is supported by Section 138.41:

Code Book: Minnesota Statutes
Citation: §138.41
Section Title: Minnesota Field Archeology Act of 1963: penalties

Summary: (1) Declares a person to be guilty of a gross misdemeanor who willfully violates §138.33, or willfully defaces, injures, destroys, displaces or removes any object or data belonging to the state, or willfully interferes with evidence or work on any state site or other site for which a license has been issued, or willfully violates any other provision of the Minnesota Field Archeology Act of 1963, or the rules issued by the director of the Minnesota Historical Society (emphasis added).

Thus, our "Viking" friend was quite rational in approaching the OSA for further professional assistance.

You are correct that most jurisdictions may not heavily penalize a small-scale, first time offender. However, having been involved in looting cases in other jurisdictions, rest assured that "serious digging" is not treated at all lightly.

Also be aware that we are currently discussing the state-level statutes of a particular region. The specifics of the statutes may vary in your area. Federal land presents quite another matter with the NHPA, ARPA, NAGPRA, AIRFA, NEPA, etc. coming into play. Depending on the locale, one may also be dealing with tribal statutes. And, to further complicate matters, there are larger projects (eg pipelines, powerlines, reservoir projects, etc.) that involve all the previously mentioned statutes in addition to others.

Bottom line: For your own benefit, do take the time to familiarize yourself with the statutes applicable to any lands that you may consider investigating. A few calls to your Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) and State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) would, as an introduction, likely serve you well. 

.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be argumentative, because I agree overall, but I disagree on some fine points.

23 hours ago, Swede said:

(§138.31) Defines a "state site" as a land or water area, owned or leased by or subject to the paramount right of the state, county, township or municipality where there are objects or other evidence of archeological interest, including all aboriginal mounds and earthworks, ancient burial grounds, prehistoric ruins, historical remains and other archeological features on state land or on land subject to the paramount rights of the state. Excludes bottles or ceramics manufactured after 1875 from the definition of historical remains.

The above does not specify currently known sites, but would be interpreted to include any sites, known or unknown, under state jurisdiction. This interpretation is supported by Section 138.41:

But, a unknown site is unknown till it is a site. Any bit of ground inside the state of Minnesota could be a potential site. So, it would be impossible to prevent digging at a potential site.

Quote

Summary: (1) Declares a person to be guilty of a gross misdemeanor who willfully violates §138.33, or willfully defaces, injures, destroys, displaces or removes any object or data belonging to the state, or willfully interferes with evidence or work on any state site or other site for which a license has been issued, or willfully violates any other provision of the Minnesota Field Archeology Act of 1963, or the rules issued by the director of the Minnesota Historical Society (emphasis added).

Right, it says "destroys, displaces or removes..." which is what I specified in my original post. This does not prevent digging to see what is there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Not to be argumentative, because I agree overall, but I disagree on some fine points.

But, a unknown site is unknown till it is a site. Any bit of ground inside the state of Minnesota could be a potential site. So, it would be impossible to prevent digging at a potential site.

Right, it says "destroys, displaces or removes..." which is what I specified in my original post. This does not prevent digging to see what is there. 

I spent much of my life in Minnesota. Swede can correct me if I'm wrong but to your first point, it would of course behoove one who is interested in digging to know beforehand the property ownership of the land in which you're interested. If it's state-owned land, it wouldn't matter if it appears on the surface to be of no historical value. If a private person is digging on said land and uncovers something of historical merit, he's in a tricky situation because he shouldn't have been digging there in the first place. It would be similar to someone going over to his neighbor's yard and digging it up—it's not his land to do so. But it seems to me, anyway, the language in §138.31 defines a known historical site.

To your second point, it would depend on how punitive the state would be on the statute. Considering you shouldn't be digging there without approval in the first place, the act of simply sinking a shovel into a site is an act of displacement. This is especially true of a known archaeological site. It's meant to keep people from, say, visiting a site of known burial mounds and digging just to see what's there.

But not all sites of burial mounds are state property, of course. Or tribal property, for that matter. Decades ago my grandfather bought land at a lake in south-central Minnesota. To this day my last surviving uncle and my deceased uncle's adult children still owns that property. It became the family lake cabin. Everyone in the family has heard the stories of the original construction of the garage structure built alongside the road. This area was always known to have had burial mounds from long-ago Native American settlements, and where my grandfather built the garage was atop a mound of earth that was perfect for such a structure. Several times the laborers my grandfather had hired to do the building, ended up digging human bones out of this mound. Each time my grandmother told them to throw the bones away.

The back end of this garage was fitted with a sizable space for a couple of bedrooms and a bathroom, to accommodate all of us cousins who couldn't be squeezed into the main cabin when we were all visiting in the summer. I always wanted to sleep in that space. Weird kid that I always was, I thought it was cool to sleep on top of an Indian mound. I was last there in 2012 for a little family reunion, the first time I had been back to the old lake property in many years. Everyone else fit into the main cabin but I insisted sleeping in the garage cottage, just like old times.

Sorry to digress. But to be perfectly honest, to this day I have the urge to dig into the foundations of the old mound to see if any human remains are still down there.

Pssst: don't tell Swede!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Not to be argumentative, because I agree overall, but I disagree on some fine points.

But, a unknown site is unknown till it is a site. Any bit of ground inside the state of Minnesota could be a potential site. So, it would be impossible to prevent digging at a potential site.

Right, it says "destroys, displaces or removes..." which is what I specified in my original post. This does not prevent digging to see what is there. 

With all due respect, you would appear to be missing the point. In regards to properties under the jurisdiction of, in this case, the state of Minnesota, it would be considered in breach of statutes to engage in unlicensed excavations. Such statutes are in place to prevent the disturbance/destruction of archaeological sites, documented or undocumented, on public properties.

You are correct that, at least hypothetically, any excavations within a given state could potentially encounter a site. And such incidences are not uncommon. Thus the institution of protective statutes within given public jurisdictions. Private properties fall under somewhat different constraints.

As previously stressed, do be aware of any undertakings you may be contemplating on public lands of any form.

.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Pssst: don't tell Swede!

Chuckle! Which brings up the private property constraints. Based upon a reading of the the relevant statutes, general excavations on private property within the state of Minnesota require no archaeological permitting. And, should artifacts be encountered, they are considered to be the property of the land owner. However, should any earth disturbing activities, such as lake shore alterations, require state or federal permitting (Corps of Engineers, EPA, DNR, etc.), a full cadre of statutes are triggered.

That said, the intentional disruption of burials on any property, public or private, is considered a felony.

.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Swede said:

Chuckle! Which brings up the private property constraints. Based upon a reading of the the relevant statutes, general excavations on private property within the state of Minnesota require no archaeological permitting. And, should artifacts be encountered, they are considered to be the property of the land owner. However, should any earth disturbing activities, such as lake shore alterations, require state or federal permitting (Corps of Engineers, EPA, DNR, etc.), a full cadre of statutes are triggered.

That said, the intentional disruption of burials on any property, public or private, is considered a felony.

.

LOL It's a good thing, then, that the disruption of that particular burial mound occurred something like seventy or eighty years ago. Can't blame it on me. All I ever did was sleep on top of the mound, and the people who did all of the digging and building are all long dead (but presumably not themselves now interred in the mound).

There's a statute of limitations, right? :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.