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 -
Captain Risky

Native American legends about the Vikings

362 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Kenemet
43 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

You can’t claim pious fraud because the pieces don’t add up the way you expect them to.  I outlined that it is possible that a Viking or someone part of their group could have been more than capable of writing the message. 

Is this not what you said?

  • Your illiterate society just happens to have an explorer with you who is literate and Christian... in fact, he's VERY literate.  Literate enough to be a priest or scribe who records civil records and more.

I appear to have been unclear (either that, or the "pious fraud" is throwing you off.)

Yes, it's possible to have a very literate Christian on the voyage or even for them to all be Christians.  The writing on the stone indicates an unusual level of literacy.  That wasn't the thrust of my argument.

The point is that the evidence points to it being a 19th century fraud and planted by someone to advance a cause.  It was never "discovered" at the time they intended for the discovery to be made and was then forgotten until dug up.  The story told by the stone is not plausible and the writing on the stone is not consistent with all the other writings from that period and those cultures.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
48 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

You can’t claim pious fraud because the pieces don’t add up the way you expect them to.  I outlined that it is possible that a Viking or someone part of their group could have been more than capable of writing the message. 

The area that was purported to be found in was pretty crowded prior to the Great Dying. They would not have been camping in a wilderness or fishing but staying in a local village. They also would not have been attacked for no reason.  

Think about what I told you about the Basque fisherman. They set up their processing stations unmolested and stayed in villages.

During the time that was created there was this myth that North America was a "vast wilderness" with a small population of Natives. That has now been proven wrong.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mellon Man
22 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

Actual vikings weren't Christian -- that the stone mentions christianity is more of a tell it's a pious fraud, well intentioned (maybe) but none to clear on actual, period history.

--Jaylemurph 

That's not correct. If we ignore the debate about the actual meaning of the word 'Viking', Vikings could be and were Christians. Harald Bluetooth made the Danes Christians, within the period known as the 'Viking age'. 

Christianity was also practiced in Greenland's settlements during the 'Viking age'. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Your illiterate society just happens to have an explorer with you who is literate and Christian... in fact, he's VERY literate.  Literate enough to be a priest or scribe who records civil records and more.

Hi Risky

And the documentation that supports this claim is where exactly?

jmccr8

Share this post


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

the primary suspect would be a Mormon.

Now that I'm thinking about it, since the account has them being dry gulched while camping, that prime projection is probably correct.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 In this case, the primary suspect would be a Mormon.

That may be questionable. With the Mormon Trail running some 325 mi south of the "find" area, the duress of the 1846/7 travels, and the cultural environment, a "branch" movement into difficult territory would be rather unlikely.

Later Mormon utilization of the Trail would encounter similar survival-related difficulties, with years such as 1862 being particularly hazardous in regards to side expeditions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

That may be questionable. With the Mormon Trail running some 325 mi south of the "find" area, the duress of the 1846/7 travels, and the cultural environment, a "branch" movement into difficult territory would be rather unlikely.

Later Mormon utilization of the Trail would encounter similar survival-related difficulties, with years such as 1862 being particularly hazardous in regards to side expeditions.

I was under the original impression that it was part of the "who was here first" race and planted after settlement of the area. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's not correct. If we ignore the debate about the actual meaning of the word 'Viking', Vikings could be and were Christians. Harald Bluetooth made the Danes Christians, within the period known as the 'Viking age'. 

Christianity was also practiced in Greenland's settlements during the 'Viking age'. 

Well, yes, if you want to be super-pedantic, each Viking was an individual and could opt to believe whatever he or she wants. And the decision of one or other petty king might or might not affect the daily life of his subjects very much, and the process of Christianization could take decades, lifetimes and centuries

So yes, in the narrowest possible sense, you are correct. That still doesn't make the idea of a bunch of magical Vikings in Minnesota appealing to the Virgin Mary any less odd, so in the general sense we're discussing here, I am.

Were you standing around correcting people about Notre Dame, too? "The /whole thing/ didn't burn down, just the roof and crossing tower. And it's the Notre Dame de Paris; there are other basilicas dedicated to Mary all around France, too, so call it the right thing..."

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
4 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Risky

And the documentation that supports this claim is where exactly?

jmccr8

Why do I have to prove who wrote anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

Why do I have to prove who wrote anything?

Hi Risky

So then it is just an Unexplained Speculation Forum, why not go all out and cover all the bases like a Catholic Viking bigfoot alien fairy

jmccr8

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
Just now, jmccr8 said:

Hi Risky

So then it is just an Unexplained Speculation Forum, why not go all out and cover all the bases like a Catholic Viking bigfoot alien fairy

jmccr8

Without defining proof I avoid dealing in absolutes. Besides, Basque fishermen and Vikings found their way to North America. You’re working on the assumption that they didn’t travel very far inland and I’m saying that might have. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
2 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Without defining proof I avoid dealing in absolutes. Besides, Basque fishermen and Vikings found their way to North America. You’re working on the assumption that they didn’t travel very far inland and I’m saying that might have. 

Hi Risky

I have made no assumptions or claims, you did and it is based on an assumption, not data. You have been here long enough to understand that a request for documentation will be asked for when making claims.

jmccr8

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

That may be questionable. With the Mormon Trail running some 325 mi south of the "find" area, the duress of the 1846/7 travels, and the cultural environment, a "branch" movement into difficult territory would be rather unlikely.

Later Mormon utilization of the Trail would encounter similar survival-related difficulties, with years such as 1862 being particularly hazardous in regards to side expeditions.

Given that it was found in 1898, it could have been buried as late as 1860 or 1870.  However, I'm not up on the cultural movements of the area and am open to the idea that it was someone else with a different agenda.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
5 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Risky

And the documentation that supports this claim is where exactly?

jmccr8

I was the one who noted the unusual literacy.  Almost no one at that time could read or write, and few could write fluently.  Hence my statement that he was unusually literate.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
22 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

I was the one who noted the unusual literacy.  Almost no one at that time could read or write, and few could write fluently.  Hence my statement that he was unusually literate.

Hi Kenemet

Yes, that is true and given your reliability to infuse the discussion with facts and reason along with references and how you presented your position has a significant bearing. Risky on the other hand has not supported his position and insists that it has a value which is why I see it as speculation.

jmccr8

  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

Hi Risky

I have made no assumptions or claims, you did and it is based on an assumption, not data. You have been here long enough to understand that a request for documentation will be asked for when making claims.

jmccr8

What documentation are you after?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
45 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

I was the one who noted the unusual literacy.  Almost no one at that time could read or write, and few could write fluently.  Hence my statement that he was unusually literate.

There’s your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

There’s your answer.

Hi Risky

Kenemet was not arguing in support of the validity of the stone she was pointing out that the probability of having someone on site that was proficient in writing and having the time to carve a stone given the circumstances was weak and your position is that it has a much higher probability without giving any credible sources. I re-read the last several pages several times and do not see where you have done anything other than speculate but if that is your stand so be it.

jmccr8

Edited by jmccr8
rephrased post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
2 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Risky

Kenemet was not arguing in support of the validity of the stone she was pointing out that the probability of having someone on site that was proficient in writing and having the time to carve a stone given the circumstances was weak and your position is that it has a much higher probability without giving any credible sources. I re-read the last several pages several times and do not see where you have done anything other than speculate but if that is your stand so be it.

jmccr8

I never quoted or cited any document, site or source for what I said. I made that perfectly clear. Neither did Kenemet in regards to the concept of Vikings or anyone with them being unable to quote bible verses or carve them onto stone. You asked for documentation from me yet none from Kenemet...Speculation is running rampant and I encourage it in this thread. Look at the thread title if you don’t or refuse to believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
On 4/14/2019 at 10:28 PM, Kenemet said:

All well and good... except...

  • Your illiterate society just happens to have an explorer with you who is literate and Christian... in fact, he's VERY literate.  Literate enough to be a priest or scribe who records civil records and more.
  • You come back from fishing.  Your people are lying dead, so you stop and bury them 
  • AND THEN... Instead of going away quickly from this spot where an attack occurred or going to hunt your enemies (not a good tactical idea, by the way), you set up there in your camp AND wait...
  • ...while the stonemason who just happened to be along with you and who just happened to bring his tools along on a fishing trip goes to select and cut (squared off edges) a 200 lb rock for a memorial.
  • AND THEN WHILE YOUR ENEMIES ARE STILL AROUND, you wait several more days while the person who writes and the stonemason carefully carve this inscription on the tombstone-like slab.  Because the letters are carefully carved and not hastily scratched.  
  • BUT while composing your memorial, the names of the men aren't listed (contrary to every other runestone in existence.} 
  • Nor do you mention the leaders of the expedition, contrary to every other runestone in existence. (examples of inscriptions on real runestones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runestone#Expeditions_in_the_East)
  • You invoke the Virgin Mary, unlike any other runestone ever found.  Runes are not used to write any Biblical material (no prayers, no invocations, no religious labels.  They used the Roman alphabet)
  • And you just happen to know what year it is.  

And the language is wrong, by the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Runestone#Lexical_evidence

Hi Risky

Do you see any links in this post? Do you understand how she was presenting her position? I am not saying that you are right or wrong, I am saying that you are not supporting your position with anything more than an opinion. I don't care one way or the other if you have an opinion and was just saying that you have not offered anything of substance to refute the position that it is an artifake.

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Risky

Do you see any links in this post? Do you understand how she was presenting her position? I am not saying that you are right or wrong, I am saying that you are not supporting your position with anything more than an opinion. I don't care one way or the other if you have an opinion and was just saying that you have not offered anything of substance to refute the position that it is an artifake.

jmccr8

two links that discuss runes that have limited to little to do with legends of vikings or any other Europeans in the interior of North America and in particular with the runes in question. so Kenemet says that there is a divergent theory on the Rune styles of the time that can be easily explained on many factors. are the rune stones fake? maybe maybe not. i refuted Kenemets points not so much whether the stones were fake or not BUT the reasons why she thinks they were fake. BUT lets look at the facts. have you considered that maybe you are looking at this from a wrong angle. in 1898 (when the Kensington stone was found), i don't think that many people if any knew that the Vikings or other Europeans frequented North America before Columbus. its great that you're passionate about providing sources. but what exactly are you trying to prove? and is it really practical for this discussion? 

Edited by Captain Risky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

i refuted Kenemets points not so much whether the stones were fake or not BUT the reasons why she thinks they were fake.

Hi Risky

 In the post, I quoted Kenemet provided a point form position that I do not think that you have effectively countered and simply commented on how you presented your rebuttal.

23 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

have you considered that maybe you are looking at this from a wrong angle. 

I don't have an angle as I am mostly participating as an observer and I read threads to learn so the more credible information given is an asset to me. Yeah, I know how selfish of me to want to learn something new.

23 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

its great that you're passionate about providing sources. but what exactly are you trying to prove? and is it really practical for this discussion? 

Maybe not for some but yes I do think that a discussion should include real documented information so that a better understanding can be had. Not saying that social chit-chat doesn't have its own rewards but over the last 10 yrs I have found this forum to be a place of great learning value given the quality and experiences of those who have spent the time to invest in themselves and freely share that with some of us that have spent time learning other skills. 

I am not saying that I do not appreciate your input only that I found your rebuttals weak and thought maybe you could expand on them. No big deal.

jmccr8

Edited by jmccr8
spulling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

Remains of Norse buildings were found at L’Anse aux Meadows near the northern tip of Newfoundland in 1960. This discovery aided the reignition of archaeological exploration for the Norse in the North Atlantic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_colonization_of_North_America

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

The Kensington stone was found in 1898. At that time no one really knew that the Norse visited and had settlements in North America. The world only really new in 1960 when they found a Norse settlement in Newfoundland. So i can’t see how the Kensington stone is a fake if it’s discovery preceded archeological proof of Norse settlers in North America.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

The Kensington stone was found in 1898. At that time no one really knew that the Norse visited and had settlements in North America. The world only really new in 1960 when they found a Norse settlement in Newfoundland. So i can’t see how the Kensington stone is a fake if it’s discovery preceded archeological proof of Norse settlers in North America.

But the legend of Lief Erikson and Vinland was well-known long prior to that find. (and Lief's voyage is specifically mentioned in context with a mission to Christianize Greenland, so there's your religious connection.)

Edited by Oniomancer
  • Like 3

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.