Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Bob Voyles

The Norse Code Stone

123 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Kenemet

The real issue is that the message is not one of a type that has ever been left by any Norseman.   And it's a purposeless stone.

If you walked all the way into a territory (where no one had gone before), the message (for people who may not come) is useless.  In fact, it's useless to anyone who sees the message - doesn't tell anything about who actually was there, what the name of the friendly tribes/enemy tribes are, etc.

"Gone to Texas" is a perfectly valid marker - it was placed where someone knew to find others and left for others to find.  "Bjorn Barson" is another valid one (grave marker)

This is not a grave marker - the names of the men are not listed (which is uncharacteristic).  Vikings did not set up battlefield markers.

It took some time to carve the stone (with stonecarving tools... this is not something pecked out by flaked rocks) - so it was done in a place where the carver was safe and had time to smooth the surface to some degree and then line out and carve the words.  If you had time to carve that, then you had time to set up a proper marker and name the people involved AND carve some decoration.  (and choose a better stone.  There's lots of stone around.)  And why wasn't the leader of the men mentioned?  Someone was bored and decided to carve out a few lines explaining why he was there...and then didn't sign it?

Why travel (two days from the main camp which was an attack/battleground) into a wilderness where nobody would expect you to be, (in a site that was not on the way back to the ship) and then make a marker there in a place where there was not a known camp (a 14 days journey from where the ships are)?  It wasn't a site holy to them, wasn't a mark along a known route.

 So it's a mix of several forms of Norse, a stone that has no purpose, and was supposedly shaped and then carved using stonecarving tools by men who were (supposedly) trying to get back to ships after nearly a third of their expedition was slaughtered.

This IS similar to Mormon Pious Frauds (I'm not saying this is a Mormon Fraud) and other similar modern frauds where someone supposedly leaves a message about a disastrous journey in the middle of an unlikely landscape... messages that are not consistent with the writing of the culture that the writer supposedly belonged to and showed a number of jarring errors in language (or other things like supposed Jews inscribing the 10 commandments (in Jewish tradition there are 613 commandments.  Only the Christians venerate 10 Commandments)

Here's what a real Norse/Viking marker looks like.

1189032_349b4938.jpg

Another reference for Medieval Viking/norse inscriptions is here:

http://www.medievalists.net/2014/02/christian-prayers-and-invocations-in-scandinavian-runic-inscriptions-from-the-viking-age-and-middle-ages/

Edited by Kenemet
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

In any event, the Kensington Stone is an anomalous artifact with no collateral data supporting it's authenticity, the lack of which makes it nothing more than a pretty rock.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
21 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

In any event, the Kensington Stone is an anomalous artifact with no collateral data supporting it's authenticity, the lack of which makes it nothing more than a pretty rock.

Plus, I'm suspicious of any fishing/hunting expedition that carries along stoneworking tools.  Fishing gear, yes.  Boat repair gear, yes.  Knives, and tents and hatchts, yes.

Stoneworker tools on the off chance you're going to encounter stone?  No.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Plus, I'm suspicious of any fishing/hunting expedition that carries along stoneworking tools.  Fishing gear, yes.  Boat repair gear, yes.  Knives, and tents and hatchts, yes.

Stoneworker tools on the off chance you're going to encounter stone?  No.

Well, you might not choose to haul around heavy, probably-useless tools. But as we all know, anyone born before the late 1970s was an idiot, incapable of any rational or creative thought or large-scale construction, and if anything worthwhile was accomplished, it was through the agency of aliens/giant space basset hounds posing as gods.

I mean, that idea is only floated through here on a weekly basis. You'd think you'd pick it up! :)

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 minute ago, Kenemet said:

Plus, I'm suspicious of any fishing/hunting expedition that carries along stoneworking tools.  Fishing gear, yes.  Boat repair gear, yes.  Knives, and tents and hatchts, yes.

Stoneworker tools on the off chance you're going to encounter stone?  No.

It's an interesting historical find, albeit in an era when fraudulent sensationalist finds were rampant. P.T. Barnum made a living off of such. I've read quite persuasive arguments in favor of it's authenticity by professionals--yet by itself--it's just twisting in the wind with no definitive confirmation ever possible. I think it is hoax, myself.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
23 hours ago, Kenemet said:

This IS similar to Mormon Pious Frauds (I'm not saying this is a Mormon Fraud) and other similar modern frauds where someone supposedly leaves a message about a disastrous journey in the middle of an unlikely landscape... messages that are not consistent with the writing of the culture that the writer supposedly belonged to and showed a number of jarring errors in language (or other things like supposed Jews inscribing the 10 commandments (in Jewish tradition there are 613 commandments.  Only the Christians venerate 10 Commandments)

 

Here's what a real Norse/Viking marker looks like.

 

It reminds me of the Dare Stones. They're frauds, but I don't think you'd call them a pious one.

One of my favorite responses to the stones was a hoary old historian who looked at the premise and muttered something along the lines of "It sure was a kind Indian who lugged a 25-pound stone hundreds of miles in the hope that a member of the same race that murdered dozens of his people might see it."

But maybe I'm just fond of hoary old historians.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

So, basically the government authorities at all levels are not going to allow for any digging, and there's no way to get around that? And the only way to prove there is something there is to dig....

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


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

So, basically the government authorities at all levels are not going to allow for any digging, and there's no way to get around that? And the only way to prove there is something there is to dig....

Oh, heck no.  It's on private land.  The landowner can allow a dig there.  Ditto all the farms around there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Oh, heck no.  It's on private land.  The landowner can allow a dig there.  Ditto all the farms around there.

Simple then. Ask the landowner how much, and then form a Kickstarter. Or, just save your tax returns for a while. If there are Millions of dollars in Viking artifacts (which need not be gold), then it should be worth it. Even if he keeps nothing, digging up a Viking site would be good enough for a book deal, which would probably be worth tens of thousands of dollars.

I thought Bob said in the previous thread that it was on some kind of county/local owned nature preserve (Quail, if I remember right.).

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
On 10/13/2017 at 9:22 AM, Bob Voyles said:

 I offer you this direct quote from the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist, from the FAQ page:

"The runestone is a large rock with Scandinavian runic inscriptions supposedly found on a farm near Kensington in Douglas County in 1898. The runic date listed on the stone is 1362. The Runestone itself has been studied by many experts of various disciplines. Most professional runic scholars and professional historians here and abroad agree that the Runestone was probably not carved in 1362 and was most likely the product of late 19th century Scandinavian settlers in western Minnesota.

The Runestone discovery site (now a county park) and other purported Medieval Norse sites in Minnesota -- as well as artifacts from these sites -- have been the subject of multiple archaeological examinations, but there is no archaeological evidence for a Medieval Norse presence in Minnesota."

 

Yep that's a pretty succinct retelling of the story. Now you may not like it but that is the situation as it stands. Consensus is that it is a forgery. Why would the MOSA state something different? You can disagree with the information but you cannot make a case that it is incorrect unless you can show what is stated there is wrong.

Do you find the following to be incorrect?

Quote

Most professional runic scholars and professional historians here and abroad agree that the Runestone was probably not carved in 1362 and was most likely the product of late 19th century Scandinavian settlers in western Minnesota.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob Voyles

Blaid Drwg, the current translation is pretty much accepted, though there are still a few questions about certain translations associated with "two skerries," for example.  Then there are various interpretations of certain translationed words or phrases, such as what a "day's journey" means.  The basic message on the runestone is generally accepted, but there are incredible interpretations of the message...some involving so-called holy bloodlines and elaborate "numbers" associated with the runic message.  I am a "message purist" in that I believe the inscriber told a simple and truthful story about a real massacre that occurred an actual day's journey north of Runestone Hill.

Further, I believe the site of the massacre was on the slightly elevated west bank of Davidson Lake, which is reached through a succession of other lakes, off the Chippewa River.  The Erdahl Axe, a medieval battle weapon, was found at this location in 1894, four years before the KRS was discovered.  The axe was found a foot and a half deep under a tree stump two feet across...this according to the original owner of the land, Mrs. Davidson.  In my view, she should be deemed as credible as Olaf Ohman.

You are right about "they" should start digging where I found the coded stonehole embedding on the ridge in western MN, near the SD border.  That is what this is all about.  As you said, it might be that there is something to find that would explain things.  I have tried to present my best guesses as to what happened...which is why I believe I found a coded message from MN's medieval Norse past.  I have presented my notion of the "best explanation" for what I have found.  I often wonder what may eventually be found by professionals when I am finally able to garner enough attention to my recent discovery.  The bottom line is that I think it is likely that these multiple-stonehole rocks are marking a medieval Norse (and Catholic Church) land claim, which would explain the peculiarities of the stoneholes and the location of their special arrangement.

I welcome other possible explanations, though for now--based on the evidence at hand, I have concluded that there are none.  So, yes, for now we can only wonder what is buried there to possibly let us know who buried it several hundred years ago?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob Voyles

Hanslune's quote from above:  "Most professional runic scholars and professional historians here and abroad agree that the Runestone was probably not carved in 1362 and was most likely the product of late 19th century Scandinavian settlers in western Minnesota."

Hanslune, most of those early "professional scholars and historians" weren't professionals, but only thought of as professionals.  Some of them and their flimsey findings have been rightfully discredited, yet, a lot of extreme bias continues.  For example, the Wikipedia entry for the KRS is completed biased and someone from England monitors the page and won't allow changes that reflect in any way the runestone's true authenticity.  The only agreement these so-called professional scholars and historians of the past had going was an agreement to be biased and unlearned.  Hanslune, have you not heard of the "dotted R" found on the KRS that by itself proves the KRS's genuineness?  The dotted R was recently confirmed on the KRS and in Europe, and no one faking the KRS could have known about the dotted R.  (You should keep up with available information.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet

The  "Erdahl Axe"???

Other than an initial report in a book written by Holand himself (the man who claims he was given the Runestone in his book,  Norse Discoveries & Explorations in America 982-1362, published in 1969), I don't see any image of the axe nor any note from any museum that they have it.  There's no photo.  No drawing.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find it suspicious that the man who came up with the stone then finds "supporting evidence" which then is nowhere to be found and not corroborated by any museum or institution.

Anybody have a photo of the thing and knowledge of its current resting place?  (N.B:  I would not accept "In the hands of a private collector," because it is a really suspicious answer, you know.)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
46 minutes ago, Bob Voyles said:

You are right about "they" should start digging where I found the coded stonehole embedding on the ridge in western MN, near the SD border.

Can you explain why there's some sort of code... when only 1% of the population of that time was literate?  Anything written in straightforward runes (or any other alphabet/hieroglyphs) would be a complete mystery and therefore safe from anyone being able to read it.

What is the purpose of code if nobody can read, anyway?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 hours ago, Bob Voyles said:

Further, I believe the site of the massacre 

 150,000,000 North American Indians were killed off or died off to create the current train wreck called the U.S.A. but what we did was massacre. Rather bias view especially since Norsemen liked to fight too. If it did happen, which I don't think it did. It would be defined as a "battle", not a "massacre". That's what you Swannuk did. Not us.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
On 10/13/2017 at 0:00 PM, Bob Voyles said:

Blaid Drwg

Yes, certainly Native Americans allowed Scandinavians to enter their territory...they had a mutual interest of future trading.  The KRS mentions ten men being massacured, likely by Native Americans.  This area was hotly contested by the Sioux and the Chippewa in the Fourteenth century.  Look up "Crow Creek" in SD's Fourteenth century to see what happened to the ten men.  The question is:  why were the men murdered?  Basically, they were too comfortable in hazardous conditions.  Making camp late and breaking camp early may have helped them.  Most of the time, Natives accompanied the Norsemen, I believe, but for some reason not in the case of the KRS sojourners, where half of the party of twenty were away fishing.  Thanks for the question about Norsemen being accompanied by Natives.

This would be incorrect. During the period of the earliest European contact with the Ojibwe (Anishinabe), the ancestors of the modern Ojibwe (along with the ancestral Ottawa (Odawa) and Potawatomie)  resided in the Sault Ste. Marie area of the Great Lakes. Etienne Brule, a protégé of Champlain, would appear to have been one of the earliest Europeans to reach Sault Ste. Marie “sometime between 1621 and 1623” (White 2005:17). At this time the Sault Ste. Marie area was inhabited by the Ojibwe (Bishop 1974) or, perhaps more correctly, the Proto-Ojibwe (see White 2005:19, 22, 37-39).

The period of conflicts known as the “Beaver Wars” resulted in a number of indigenous population movements. Amongst the cultural movements that transpired as a result of these conflicts was the beginning of the most recent westward migration of the ancestors of the modern Ojibwe (Anishinabe). This migration along the northern and southern shores of Lake Superior and further inland appears to have begun sometime after 1680 (Hickerson 1962a:85 in Bishop 1974:9).

This movement generated a long running series of conflicts with the Siouan speaking groups that had inhabited the region prior to the westward movement of the Ojibwe. In his History of the Ojibwe People, William Whipple Warren wrote the following; “In the year 1781, the large band of Ojibways, who had taken possession of Leech Lake (one of the sources of the Mississippi), became for the first time known by the distinctive appellation of “Pillagers”…” (Warren 1984 [1885]:256). In an 1832 letter from Dr. Douglas Houghton to Henry R. Schoolcraft, Houghton refers to an incident involving the Ojibwe (Anishinabe) residing at Leech Lake that occurred near Leech Lake in the fall of 1767 or 1768 (Mason, ed. 1993). This incident involved the robbing (and subsequent related death) of a fur trader based near Leech Lake by “Indians residing at that lake” (Houghton in Mason, ed. 1993:301). The context surrounding this recounting consistently refers to the “Chippewas” [Ojibwe].

An 1807 letter from North West Company clerk George Henry Monk, Jr., who was stationed at the North West Company post at Leech Lake at the time of the writing, contains the following; “Old men pointed out to us the marks of the old Sioux Villages, which Nation was driven away 70 or 80 years ago [circa 1727-1737] by the Sauteux [Ojibwe] the present possessors” (Nute 1923:38). From the context of this letter, it is rather difficult to determine the exact area of the Headwaters region to which Monk is referring and, based upon the context, may allude to areas closer to Red Lake, Minnesota. In addition, the dates referred to by Monk may be considered to be somewhat early in regards to the Ojibwe (Anishinabe) habitation of Leech Lake proper. Nonetheless, the writings of Warren, Houghton, and Monk would tend to bracket an indigenous cultural transition period in north-central Minnesota centered sometime in the mid-eighteenth century. The oral histories and birch bark scrolls of the Ojibwe in accompaniment with the Fur Trade era journals and maps of Perrault, Schoolcraft, Johnston, Boutwell, and Nicollet indicate that the original Leech Lake base camp/village of the Ojibwe was located at the Two Points Village Site, Otter Tail Point, Leech Lake, Minnesota (Dewdney 1975, Hohman-Caine and Goltz 2008).

Thus, your timeline is grossly inaccurate. As to the 13th century Crow Creek Site, this conflict is understood to have been between Plains groups. Those most likely involved were Siouxan speaking groups and possibly ancestors of the modern Arikara.

.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
On 10/12/2017 at 8:01 PM, Blaid Drwg said:

Apparently there would be intrest in the region so would there not have been presence there of Native American in the midievel years, at the spot where these stoneholes are? Also on the trip off the Norse folks towards that point encounterd native americans?

That the region in question has been inhabited by indigenous peoples for many thousands of years (~13 k+) is matter of record in the professional literature. The probability of the Norse encountering Native Americans during the course of what would have been, at best, a long and arduous journey, would have been essentially 100%. One must then consider the less than peaceful relations that would appear to have been the pattern in regards to known Norse settlements. As is evidenced in the Fur Trade era literature, the Europeans were reliant not only on the good will of the indigenous peoples, but also their detailed knowledge of the various environs and the associated survival practices that were foreign to the Europeans. Without assistance and the transfer of skills, the likelihood of a successful mid-continental venture by the Norse becomes notably compromised.

Edit: Phrasing.

Edited by Swede
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Can you explain why there's some sort of code... when only 1% of the population of that time was literate?  Anything written in straightforward runes (or any other alphabet/hieroglyphs) would be a complete mystery and therefore safe from anyone being able to read it.

What is the purpose of code if nobody can read, anyway?

Hi Kenemet,

Bob's "code" appears to refer his bore hole "discoveries". If you pull up the aerial imagery of Bob's "find spot", you will find that it is located in close proximity to a modern dam construct and various other construction activities. Bore hole (blasting) remnants/rubble do come to mind, some of which may pre-date the current era and may be related to earlier agricultural or construction activities. That, or a unique approach to "farm binary coding" (!).

.

.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

 150,000,000 North American Indians were killed off or died off to create the current train wreck called the U.S.A. but what we did was massacre. Rather bias view especially since Norsemen liked to fight too. If it did happen, which I don't think it did. It would be defined as a "battle", not a "massacre". That's what you Swannuk did. Not us.

Piney, good to see you back. Hope that all is going well.

.

Share this post


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

Piney, good to see you back. Hope that all is going well.

.

Gotta saw swinging gig for one of the last of the Piney sawmills. Life is real good. 

Your right about the Nishnabs pushing against the Caahaa (Sioux) because of White expansion and trade concessions. Before that there was peaceful interactions and culture  exchange. Many of the Miidiwiin practices were from the Sioux and some lodges had members from both tribes.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
5 hours ago, Bob Voyles said:

Hanslune, most of those early "professional scholars and historians" weren't professionals, but only thought of as professionals. 

In your opinion - are you a professional scholar?

Quote

Some of them and their flimsey findings have been rightfully discredited, yet, a lot of extreme bias continues. 

In your opinion

Quote

For example, the Wikipedia entry for the KRS is completed biased and someone from England monitors the page and won't allow changes that reflect in any way the runestone's true authenticity.

Oh, that is normal for a Wikipedia editor to keep a controversial subject from being constantly changed or incorrect information added.

Why don't you place here what you think the Wikipedia article should say?
 

Quote

The only agreement these so-called professional scholars and historians of the past had going was an agreement to be biased and unlearned.

Ah but that is just your opinion again. Which seemed based on rage and emotion on your part. You need to actually produce the evidence you are basing this on. Then you have to get a consensus of people who know about the subject to agree with you. Your own acceptance of your own beliefs is not particularly important.

Quote

Hanslune, have you not heard of the "dotted R" found on the KRS that by itself proves the KRS's genuineness? 

Yes I have, what 6-7 years ago? I believe it is a natural occurrence.and you should keep up with available information and realize someone declaring it man made is their opinion.

What the rune stone is cannot be proved one way or another. Based on all information on it I don't believe Norse explorers placed it there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal
41 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

 

What the rune stone is cannot be proved one way or another. Based on all information on it I don't believe Norse explorers placed it there.

Even if the runestone is real, of what consequence is it really other than to say that a small party of Norse had a failed expedition that far into the interior of North America.

 No colony or trade outpost was established. No (known) record made it back to the attested settlements of the Norse for that period.

  In historical terms it would be the same as if I hop in a kayak, skirt the coast of Alaska North, scribble on a rock, hop back in my Kayak, end up shark food and a few hundred years from now someone sees the rock and reads the writing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

In your opinion - are you a professional scholar?

Heh. He can't be. Far too thin-skinned. I'm pretty sure anyone as... inclined to self-martyrdom, say, would make it about three months in grad school before swearing off the field and academia in general, should they somehow cajole themselves into a program.

I've seen it happen more than once.

--Jaylemurph 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
33 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Heh. He can't be. Far too thin-skinned. I'm pretty sure anyone as... inclined to self-martyrdom, say, would make it about three months in grad school before swearing off the field and academia in general, should they somehow cajole themselves into a program.

I've seen it happen more than once.

--Jaylemurph 

Been there done that. I got thorough the second step and was starting the third and decided it wasn't for me. I liked the field work but disliked much of the remainder. Oddly many years later I took of teaching, a mature me could withstand such insults to my intelligence my younger self could not!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob Voyles

http://www.ojibwe.org/home/about_anish_timeline.html

900 AD - Seven Spirits or Grandfathers come to the Anisihnaabe living on the eastern shores of the Atlantic from what today is the St. Lawrence River south into Maine and other New England States. They deliver seven prophecies, including the coming of the white race. This marks the beginning of the westward Anishinaabe migration.

1395 - Approximate time that Ojibwe people reached Moningwunkauning (Madeline Island).

1400 - It is believed that the westward migration took about 500 years to complete, at which time the Ojibwe people as far west as northern Minnesota reached the land where food (wild rice) grows on water as prophesied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.