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

Bob Voyles

Under “Academic Consensus,” on the Wikipedia page “Identifying Reliable Sources,” it says the following:

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.

_________________

I'm not sure, but it kind of looks to me like Mr. Weller, as an editor of Wikipedia, may have been guilty of synthesizing disparate material together as a way of presenting bias into the KRS discussion, if he is controlling the KRS lead information.  The lead-in on the KRS talks about a “scholarly consensus,” considering it a hoax, though only a few individual examples appear to be noted.  This could be misleading and could be a basis for for Wikipedia Editor to be canned, or at least assigned away from editing important American history.

I think we should keep in mind, too, that a concensus can and does change over time....  For this reason, I tend to believe that those who don't consider the KRS valid--after diligent study--are the ones on the "fringe" of accurate history.  I believe the proposed Norse Code-stone I recently discovered fits in very well with the medieval time-frame of the KRS, and the stoneholes associated with both the KRS and the Code-stone show a connection to medieval Scandinavians, who also made stoneholes back in their homelands.  In understanding this, it helps not to be excessively doubtful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
36 minutes ago, Bob Voyles said:

 This could be misleading and could be a basis for for Wikipedia Editor to be canned, or at least assigned away from editing important American history.

...that might be true, were editors and writers at Wikipedia hired or fired to begin with, or if they had certain domains for which they were responsible. They're all volunteer. That's the whole /point/ of Wikipedia: it's community based and community edited.

"It helps not be excessively doubtful" is pretty much the antithesis of historical thinking, and pretty much all advanced thinking since Descartes. I'd love to be that cavalier in my attitude towards consensus or anything else. And I *know* you're not responding to this, but I've never seen anyone here completely dismiss rational thought as a needless complication before. It's certainly an idea others besides myself will want to discuss, if only to marvel together* at the wisdom that let this one fly.

--Jaylemurph

*But I'm sure we'll all chastely stop marvelling after a short-term period. One would not wish to appear chronically astonished, at least not in this forum.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
44 minutes ago, Bob Voyles said:

Under “Academic Consensus,” on the Wikipedia page “Identifying Reliable Sources,” it says the following:

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.

_________________

I'm not sure, but it kind of looks to me like Mr. Weller, as an editor of Wikipedia, may have been guilty of synthesizing disparate material together as a way of presenting bias into the KRS discussion, if he is controlling the KRS lead information.  The lead-in on the KRS talks about a “scholarly consensus,” considering it a hoax, though only a few individual examples appear to be noted.  This could be misleading and could be a basis for for Wikipedia Editor to be canned, or at least assigned away from editing important American history.

I think we should keep in mind, too, that a concensus can and does change over time....  For this reason, I tend to believe that those who don't consider the KRS valid--after diligent study--are the ones on the "fringe" of accurate history.  I believe the proposed Norse Code-stone I recently discovered fits in very well with the medieval time-frame of the KRS, and the stoneholes associated with both the KRS and the Code-stone show a connection to medieval Scandinavians, who also made stoneholes back in their homelands.  In understanding this, it helps not to be excessively doubtful.

Since you are interested in the subject. Why don't YOU do the work and determine what the consensus is by surveying the field. First ID the body of people who would be valid experts on such a subject and could be approached  for such a survey, write the survey, and then administer it....Much much better since you could be seen as a biased individual, hire a neutral organization to do the work.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

...that might be true, were editors and writers at Wikipedia hired or fired to begin with, or if they had certain domains for which they were responsible. They're all volunteer. That's the whole /point/ of Wikipedia: it's community based and community edited.

"It helps not be excessively doubtful" is pretty much the antithesis of historical thinking, and pretty much all advanced thinking since Descartes. I'd love to be that cavalier in my attitude towards consensus or anything else. And I *know* you're not responding to this, but I've never seen anyone here completely dismiss rational thought as a needless complication before. It's certainly an idea others besides myself will want to discuss, if only to marvel together* at the wisdom that let this one fly.

 

Yep I'm an editor too. Purely voluntary,  I watch several sites - but despite flurries of vigorous activity in the past (mainly people putting in stuff about Atlantis, aliens etc) they have been rather slow for several years. He can also voice a complaint but I can tell him that he needs more than his 'outraged' opinion to sway anyone.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blaid Drwg

The KSR on itself is doubtfull to be true. it would be strange to find it there and to be written in at least 4 different dialects at that time since even if it would be written in plain Runic it would be hard to read to anyone and they would be what? The first to come there so they could not be certain any of there own kind would come there again (or they must be very arrogant and think they would own the land for sure in the future).

Besides that. There seems to be something under the ground and to be honest I find it quite idiotic for not digging it up. What is beneath the ground there could give insight to the past of that region. Who knows what they find it does not even has to do with any visit of Vikings for the matter. Could even be much older than the stoneholes found. So why not dig it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
17 hours ago, Bob Voyles said:

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.

The problem is that this material from the Walam Olum may also be faked.  No one has ever seen the original documents/sticks.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walam_Olum

If it's an actual document anyway, archaeological evidence shows that they were keeping this kind of record back in 1500 AD...but not earlier than that.  So the 900 AD information could only have been passed by word of mouth and may be highly inaccurate or simply a myth.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
19 hours ago, Bob Voyles said:

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.

1) General notes: The full text (ie book) that your reference is sourced from (Peacock and Wisuri 2002) has resided in my research/reference library since soon after its publication. While said text does have some degree of value, it also contains a number of rather stark errors including those of a geographic/mapping nature. As previously noted by Kenemet, the Wallum Olam (the source of your timeline) is a rather questionable source and modern research has cast serious doubts upon its authenticity. In short, it is generally considered to be fraudulent. In this case, the dating errors are supported by voluminous archaeological and primary-source historical data. Further details:

  • Archaeological data and traditional oral histories place the location of the proto-Ojibwe circa 1000 AD near the eastern seaboard of North America, likely in the Newfoundland area.
  • Beginning circa 1000 AD a westward a westward migration was initiated by the proto-Ojibwe. Traditional histories attribute this migration to more spiritual realms, though climatic changes may have also been an impetus.
  • As previously referenced, this group was located in the Sault Ste. Marie area by at least 1600 AD.
  • The dating of the outlier habitation of Madeline Island (La Point) is subject to debate and source. An extrapolation of the information in Warren (1984 [1885]) suggests a date in the middle to latter 1500's.
  • While the presence of the outlier population is known, this outlier population does not represent the larger, significant population movements previously cited.
  • To my knowledge, the earliest reference to the Ojibwe (Anishinabe) in the state of your residence is associated with the modern Canadian border area in 1726.
  • The conflicts between Siouxan speaking groups and the Ojibwe (Anishinabe) spanned a period of nearly 200 years, geographically beginning somewhat to the east of your current state of residence.
  • These conflicts ostensibly came to an end with the Sweetcorn Treaty (1870), though oral traditions indicate that limited hostilities continued beyond this point.

Edit: Font.

Edited by Swede
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
On 10/15/2017 at 5:50 PM, Piney said:

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.  

Great to learn that you are doing well. Carry on!

The history of the M'ide, though likely off-topic here, is an interesting study in itself. And the cultural exchanges do continue (eg bustles, Sun Dances, etc.)

.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
17 hours ago, Kenemet said:

The problem is that this material from the Walam Olum may also be faked.  No one has ever seen the original documents/sticks.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walam_Olum

If it's an actual document anyway, archaeological evidence shows that they were keeping this kind of record back in 1500 AD...but not earlier than that.  So the 900 AD information could only have been passed by word of mouth and may be highly inaccurate or simply a myth.

 The Walam Olum is a outright fake. The Nishnab as with the Proto-Munsee/ Mohican  probably were the Meadowood Culture. The Lenape  were a smash together of Meadowood, Middlesex and Fox Creek Cultures. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob Voyles

Well, I guess we might see a slight diversion into exactitude when it comes to attempting to choose out who may have massacred the ten men who stayed back that fateful day in 1362, while their friends went fishing.  (By the way, Davidson Lake, the probable campsite, even today has poor fishing...mostly pike, being a shallow lake.)  I say "massacred," because I think it likely the men were ambushed, given the circumstances.  So, maybe the Sioux and the Chippewa were already butting heads as early as 1362, maybe not.  Obviously, the KRS party met up with Native Americans who didn't appreciate them being there.  However, I think we can rightfully assume that the same KRS party were "escorted" into the region.  This indicates to me that there were likely two warring groups of Native Americans in that specific region.  It may be that neither of the opposing groups were Chippewa Native Americans.  Whenever a group of Scandinavians came down from Hudson Bay via the Nelson and Red Rivers, I think we can assume they were escorted into the Kensington region by Sioux Native Americans.  However, since I find it more likely the KRS party came west from Vinland via the Great Lakes route, I logically find it likely that they had been escorted into the far west Lake Superior area by Ojibwa Native Americans.  (See the Norse vessel petroglyph located on public land near Copper Harbor, MI):  http://www.norwegianamerican.com/opinion/in-defense-of-the-kensington-runestone-waterways/  Those are snakeheads at each end, which gives authenticity to the carving, since it is unlikely that any modern hoaxer would have know that snakeheads were common on Norse ships, like dragon heads were.

But, as I said, this is diverting us away from the main subject at hand, which is the proposed Norse Code-stone I discovered just a bit over two years ago.  Again, my overall intention is to garner attention and, if possible, support for an eventual professional dig at the site.  For clarification, the site is on MN State land set aside for quail habitat.  Any archaological work must be approved by the State Archaeologist.  Another clarification...I mentioned the Crow Creek massacre as taking place in the Fourteenth century, not the Thirteenth.  Additionally, I already knew this massacre had nothing to do with the Chippewa NE of Crow Creek, SD; I offered the historical episode to show that scalping and mutilating the enemy was commonplace in that general area in that general time period.  Hence, the description of "red with blood" inscribed onto the KRS.  Once more, I believe everything said on the KRS can and should be taken at face value, as having actually happened.

I hope we can manage to stick with debating the subject I brought here, and steer away from overly-crude doubt and nitpicking.  I was thinking this was an "unsolved mystery" blog at least as much or more than a skeptic's blog.  I've already discovered that a skeptic's blog isn't much fun--way too much negativity and overt rudeness, which is always unwelcome in any civil debate.  Anyway, I welcome sincere questions as much as I oppose unneccessarily crass comments.  This seems like a potentially good venue to share knowledge, in spite of the troll-like negativity.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
52 minutes ago, Bob Voyles said:

Well, I guess we might see a slight diversion into exactitude when it comes to attempting to choose out who may have massacred the ten men who stayed back that fateful day in 1362, while their friends went fishing.  (By the way, Davidson Lake, the probable campsite, even today has poor fishing...mostly pike, being a shallow lake.)  I say "massacred," because I think it likely the men were ambushed, given the circumstances.  So, maybe the Sioux and the Chippewa were already butting heads as early as 1362, maybe not.  Obviously, the KRS party met up with Native Americans who didn't appreciate them being there. 

 

 You have a very bias and racist view of  the "warlike" nature of my brothers the Nishnabs and my cousins the Dakota. 100 percent of the time we didn't appreciate the whites was because they did something greasy in the first place. One example is my people, the Lenape. We never bothered the Swedes or Quakers but killed a lot of Dutch. They were very greasy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
internetperson
On 10/15/2017 at 11:42 AM, Kenemet said:

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

Really? That's interesting I always thought these kinda things were treated like murder scenes. 

Share this post


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

Really? That's interesting I always thought these kinda things were treated like murder scenes. 

Certain ones, yes... but lots of folks have things like rock art and known mounds on their property.  Unless they notify someone, nobody knows about them... and even when they do notify museums, etc, the number of dig crews that a museum or university can finance is small.   My archaeology class went to a digsite on someone's farm.

So, if the owner gave permission, anyone could go dig.  The artifacts they retrieved would lose all value without a professional setup and documentation but you can dig them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blaid Drwg
24 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Certain ones, yes... but lots of folks have things like rock art and known mounds on their property.  Unless they notify someone, nobody knows about them... and even when they do notify museums, etc, the number of dig crews that a museum or university can finance is small.   My archaeology class went to a digsite on someone's farm.

So, if the owner gave permission, anyone could go dig.  The artifacts they retrieved would lose all value without a professional setup and documentation but you can dig them up.

I tought this area was owned by the state and being a nature reservate for the quals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
36 minutes ago, Blaid Drwg said:

I tought this area was owned by the state and being a nature reservate for the quals. 

I don't know.  I was under the impression that this was private land, but I could be mistaken.

State digs are notoriously underfunded and the best case is when a local archaeological society asks permission to do a dig there.  Most state archaeologists do things like inspect road expansions to make sure there's nothing archaeologically valuable there.  Very few get to dig at historic sites.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I don't know.  I was under the impression that this was private land, but I could be mistaken.

State digs are notoriously underfunded and the best case is when a local archaeological society asks permission to do a dig there.  Most state archaeologists do things like inspect road expansions to make sure there's nothing archaeologically valuable there.  Very few get to dig at historic sites.

I grew up mostly in Minnesota. During one of my early years in college I was visiting a pretty area in north-cental Minnesota (camping and such). I had heard about a dig taking place nearby, so I went to check it out. The K-Mart there was exapanding toward the back of the store, and in the process of breaking ground they unearthed an ancient camping site. This is right next to a large lake, so it would've been ideal for seasonal settlement. I was taking a lot of anthro and archaeology courses, so they let me into the dig site. It was being run by the state archaeologist (a woman, but can't remember her name). It was so fascinating. This was a long-used ancient site, and the lower strata contained burials. I still remember standing there at the table and looking at the human remains. It was the only time I'd met a state archaeologist and it was a pretty big operation—lots of college students, locals, and others to do the grunt work.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

Bob Voyles earlier mentioned a talk he gave in Park Rapids. I used to know that town well, and the surrounding counties in that area of Minnesota. I delved pretty deeply into its history. All through the nineteenth century and early twentieth that area was busy with homesteaders. It's a beautiful area and kind of rough, with a lot of rocks. It could not have been terribly easy to clear the old-growth timber and work the land (which they did in mostly small patches in the early days).

Based on my own knowledge of the homesteading activity in that area of Minnesota, I would posit that Bob's "code stone" holes are actually bore holes drilled by homesteaders and early farmers to blast rocks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
On 10/15/2017 at 9:02 PM, Bob Voyles said:

....snip....

Bob there is some confusion among those on this board over who owns the land you want to be excavated. Could you restate/link to your/a previous post to clarify that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Just now, kmt_sesh said:

Bob Voyles earlier mentioned a talk he gave in Park Rapids. I used to know that town well, and the surrounding counties in that area of Minnesota. I delved pretty deeply into its history. All through the nineteenth century and early twentieth that area was busy with homesteaders. It's a beautiful area and kind of rough, with a lot of rocks. It could not have been terribly easy to clear the old-growth timber and work the land (which they did in mostly small patches in the early days).

Based on my own knowledge of the homesteading activity in that area of Minnesota, I would posit that Bob's "code stone" holes are actually bore holes drilled by homesteaders and early farmers to blast rocks.

Or stumps, dynamiting/blackpowdering large tree stumps was pleasant activity.

Share this post


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

Based on my own knowledge of the homesteading activity in that area of Minnesota, I would posit that Bob's "code stone" holes are actually bore holes drilled by homesteaders and early farmers to blast rocks.

That's not interesting enough to be true. We all know that the truth is always INTERESTING AND EXCITING AND MINDBLOWING. This is none of those things.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob Voyles

Piney says to me:  "You have a very bias and racist view of  the "warlike" nature of my brothers the Nishnabs and my cousins the Dakota. 100 percent of the time we didn't appreciate the whites was because they did something greasy in the first place. One example is my people, the Lenape. We never bothered the Swedes or Quakers but killed a lot of Dutch. They were very greasy."

Clearly, nothing I said was biased or racist toward Native Americans.  I believe Native Americans chose to kill ten Norsemen in 1362, as told on the KRS, just as I believe it is legitimate here to bring up Crow Creek as partial proof of how Native Americans treated their enemies in that time-frame.  Obviously, the KRS party of men were seen as enemies by those who killed them.

I believe that all humankind is warlike, as part of our nature.  The Viking Age speaks for itself, just as Crow Creek speaks for itself.  Piney, you are doing the same thing as the earlier person did here who chose to be disrespectful to me as the initiator of a subject rather than join in the debate.  Unless you apologize, I will no longer respond to you, either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
26 minutes ago, Bob Voyles said:

Piney says to me:  "You have a very bias and racist view of  the "warlike" nature of my brothers the Nishnabs and my cousins the Dakota. 100 percent of the time we didn't appreciate the whites was because they did something greasy in the first place. One example is my people, the Lenape. We never bothered the Swedes or Quakers but killed a lot of Dutch. They were very greasy."

Clearly, nothing I said was biased or racist toward Native Americans.  I believe Native Americans chose to kill ten Norsemen in 1362, as told on the KRS, just as I believe it is legitimate here to bring up Crow Creek as partial proof of how Native Americans treated their enemies in that time-frame.  Obviously, the KRS party of men were seen as enemies by those who killed them.

I believe that all humankind is warlike, as part of our nature.  The Viking Age speaks for itself, just as Crow Creek speaks for itself.  Piney, you are doing the same thing as the earlier person did here who chose to be disrespectful to me as the initiator of a subject rather than join in the debate.  Unless you apologize, I will no longer respond to you, either.  

Well when you make historically incorrect comments and adding personal perspectives it is well within the forum protocol to give acurate rebuttals. There are many people that visit this site looking for information and many of us tend to take a dim view of misleading information so Piney is no under any obligation to apologize for correcting you.

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob Voyles

kmt_sesh, thanks for your comments.  The Sauk Lake Altar Rock's stoneholes were observed at least ten years before any clearing of land (rocks) took place in that spot.  Though H. Holand discredited himself over a few subjects such as the supposed Knutson search party and stoneholes being for mooring ships, he accomplished a lot when it came to researching finds associated with Norse exploration in Minnesota.  Blasting is out for this huge rock.  When thinking this over, please try to keep in mind that the KRS was encircled by a dozen or so slightly triangular-shaped stoneholes that appear very aged, similiar to those on the Altar Rock.  Late 1800's stoneholes show very little aging compared to proposed medieval stoneholes thought to be several hundred years old.

kmt_sesh, I encourage you to look into this whole subject further, since you seem to indicate a past interest in Minnesota archaeology.  Please know upfront that many people wrongfully think many of these genuine medieval stoneholes are "leftovers" related to forgeting to blast, when in fact many of these medieval stoneholes show up in places where clearing land would not be an issue, or in still-isolated locales.  The false concept of "unblasted stoneholes" was publicized and pushed by "learned academic" Tom Trow many years ago.  I think he used to work for the Minnesota Historical Society, so quizzitive minds reading this might wonder about this obvious connection between "academia" and "hidebound-ness," and how it comes into play when it comes to attempting to explain away medieval Norse exploration into Minnesota.  Remember, the Party Line is that the French were here in MN before the Norse.

As anyone can see looking into this deeply instead of superficially, I tried to explain and show many stoneholes in the YouTube videos leading up to explaining the proposed Norse Code-stone.  I have made a great study of stoneholes in this region, making multiple trips out into the field.  I've discovered many, many stoneholes myself.  I have a vast collection of stonehole photos showing many kinds of stoneholes, most taken myself.  I believe it is likely that the stoneholes making up the Code-stone are telling a "land claim" story, as backed up by a metal detector.  By the way, none of the nearly fifty stoneholes on the ridge were blasted...neither of the late 1800's type or the medieval Scandinavian type.  (This is a great spot for future stonehole aging comparisons.)

Again, just to be clear, the site is on public State land set aside for quail habitat.  Any professional dig would need to be approved by the Office of the State Archaeologist.  I have no interest in digging there myself for two very important reasons:  I don't want to violate the law, and even more importantly, I don't want to compromise the provenance of whatever may be unearthed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob Voyles

jmccr8 says to me:  "Well when you make historically incorrect comments...."  Then jmccr8, you tied in Piney's inapproprite comment as somehow representing some truth against what I have said.  The truth is easy to see here:  you are accusing me of making historically incorrect comments, when in fact it is you who has attempted to infuse erroneous information into the conversation.  Specifically, it is improper for you to say that I am making historically incorrect comments, when I'm not, and specifically, it is improper for you to attempt to back up Piney and his undisciplined comments.  It will not be worth responding to you again in the future, as with the other self-identified trolls here. 

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.