Native American legends about the Vikings

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

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.

Why would they have needed proof to make such a claim?

To me it seems more of a justification that their ancestors were here first. 

That would go a long way in making any sort of land claim.

"Hey! My ancestors were here! This land rightfully belongs to me and my people!"

I find it a little dubious that a random Swedish guy found such an important historical object that would provide evidence that his ancestors were there 500 years before.

It's not like they found an archeological site that could be dated and studied.

They found no other artifacts relating to the stone as far as I know.

[Swede]

22 hours ago, Piney said:

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

We are again going back to the period where fraudulent artifacts were not terribly uncommon and were created for various reasons. Given the time period and the cultural milieu, it may have been nothing more that a somewhat elaborate prank.

.

[Swede]

19 hours ago, Kenemet said:

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.

There are a number of factors to consider and am running short on time. To touch upon just a point or two/three.

• During the time period in question, the area was beginning to be homesteaded by immigrants, many/most of whom had come from Scandinavia. Some researchers have identified individuals in the local community who may have had the educational background to contribute to the "project".
• The area in question was, at this time, a disputed territory between the Anishinabe (Ojibwe) and the Dakota and was a product of an approximately 200 year long series of conflicts. Raiding still occurred. We then have the events of 1862. Fertile grounds for a construct.

Lest "anyone" misinterpret the latter points, the conflict situation post-dates the runestone "date" by centuries.

.

[Kenemet]

2 hours ago, Swede said:

There are a number of factors to consider and am running short on time. To touch upon just a point or two/three.

• During the time period in question, the area was beginning to be homesteaded by immigrants, many/most of whom had come from Scandinavia. Some researchers have identified individuals in the local community who may have had the educational background to contribute to the "project".
• The area in question was, at this time, a disputed territory between the Anishinabe (Ojibwe) and the Dakota and was a product of an approximately 200 year long series of conflicts. Raiding still occurred. We then have the events of 1862. Fertile grounds for a construct.

Lest "anyone" misinterpret the latter points, the conflict situation post-dates the runestone "date" by centuries.

.

It is, but were there other instances of faked artifacts to support Scandinavian culture in the area?  I admit I'm not up on the topic.

[Unusual Tournament]

10 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

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.)

I specifically said archeological evidence. And even if I didn’t the Kensington stone speaks of a14th century  Norse expedition NOT about an 11th century one with Lief Erikson. 

[Unusual Tournament]

10 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Why would they have needed proof to make such a claim?

To me it seems more of a justification that their ancestors were here first. 

That would go a long way in making any sort of land claim.

"Hey! My ancestors were here! This land rightfully belongs to me and my people!"

I find it a little dubious that a random Swedish guy found such an important historical object that would provide evidence that his ancestors were there 500 years before.

It's not like they found an archeological site that could be dated and studied.

They found no other artifacts relating to the stone as far as I know.

No that’s just you unwilling to accept that Norsemen made it pass a few miles inland from the coast.

[onlookerofmayhem]

18 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

No that’s just you unwilling to accept that Norsemen made it pass a few miles inland from the coast.

A few miles from what coast?

Do you mean the coast of Lake Superior?

There is a plausible route through the great lakes.

Kensington Minnesota is thousands of miles from the Atlantic Ocean and thousands of miles away from every known Viking settlement. 

I'm not claiming it was impossible for Norsemen, or anyone for that matter, to have traveled all over the place.

But in this case, all the evidence points to a fraud runestone.

They found no village, no weapons, no boats, no bodies and no other corroborating evidence. 

You are seemingly unwilling to accept the premise that people fake artifacts that fuel their own agenda.

 

[jaylemurph]

3 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

You are seemingly unwilling to accept the premise that people fake artifacts that fuel their own agenda.

Great.

Now you've given him ideas. 

--Jaylemurph 

[Ozymandias]

The Kensington Runestone is a fake. Besides the intrinsic and contextual evidence proving that it was a forgery (all of which has been presented here) let us ponder the answer to this question:

If it was genuine, for whom was it intended when it was carved?

[Oniomancer]

4 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

I specifically said archeological evidence. And even if I didn’t the Kensington stone speaks of a14th century  Norse expedition NOT about an 11th century one with Lief Erikson. 

Since when do you need the presence of real evidence to produce fake evidence? The idea is enough to create incentive. As for the time disparity, guess when the written versions of the sagas mentioning those earlier voyages date to? C'mon, guess.

As an aside, reading over the transcript, I see is uses the word ships, plural. Not boats. Here again we have the problem of "you can't get there from here", so they would've had a long, hard portage or needed to build new vessels.

[Hanslune]

Hey this 9 year long thread at Historum has some true believers in it.

https://historum.com/threads/the-kensington-runestone.12965/page-54

I dare you to invite him here to comment.......

[Piney]

1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

I dare you to invite him here to comment.......

Newport Tower crap.. meh.......54 pages of Eurocentric dreck....meh....... Nothankyouverymuch........

[Hanslune]

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

Newport Tower crap.. meh.......54 pages of Eurocentric dreck....meh....... Nothankyouverymuch........

Hey he's got math - lots and lots of math.

[Swede]

19 hours ago, Kenemet said:

It is, but were there other instances of faked artifacts to support Scandinavian culture in the area?  I admit I'm not up on the topic.

Am not personally aware of any other fraudulent artifacts, but after the runestone “discovery” created a wave of excitement,  there have been a number of other “finds” from the area that have been purported to be of Viking origin.

One of these is the Ulen sword, an agricultural field find of the early 20^th century. Despite the claims of its origin, it has been demonstrated to be a 1794 French design that was manufactured in Philadelphia in the early 1800s.

“Mooring hole” stones are another group of artifacts that have been suggested as being “proof” of Viking presence. These have been demonstrated to actually be a common product of quarrying and stone construction activities (houses, etc.). Blasting and splitting holes.  It has also been demonstrated that the Vikings utilized a different form of mooring device, a post set in the ground with an attached metal ring. In addition, these “mooring hole” stones are often found in areas not associated with flowages.

In regards to my time-limited input of yesterday, it would be remiss to not provide you with a somewhat more complete background. The 19^th century was a period of rapid and dynamic cultural change in the region and a total accounting is far too complex for this format. The following timeline includes just some major points for perspective.

1805- US treaty with the Dakota.

1825- US led treaty between the Ojibwe and the Dakota.

1837- Land cession treaty with the Ojibwe.

1846/47- Initial use of Mormon Trail.

1848/49- US military fort constructed in find area to act as a buffer between the Ojibwe and the Dakota.

~1850- Settlers, including many immigrants, begin moving into find area.

1854- Land cession treaty with the Ojibwe.

1855- Land cession treaty with the Ojibwe.

1858-1866- County of find site created and organized.

1862- US-Dakota War (Sioux Uprising). Results in removal of Dakota.

1868- End of the use of the Mormon Trail (railroad established).

1870- Peace treaty between Ojibwe and Dakota.

1898- Runestone surfaces.

As one can observe from even this skeletal outline, the period of potential Mormon influence was quite tumultuous.

.

[jmccr8]

12 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

A few miles from what coast?

Do you mean the coast of Lake Superior?

There is a plausible route through the great lakes.

Kensington Minnesota is thousands of miles from the Atlantic Ocean and thousands of miles away from every known Viking settlement. 

I'm not claiming it was impossible for Norsemen, or anyone for that matter, to have traveled all over the place.

But in this case, all the evidence points to a fraud runestone.

They found no village, no weapons, no boats, no bodies and no other corroborating evidence. 

You are seemingly unwilling to accept the premise that people fake artifacts that fuel their own agenda.

 

Hi Onlookerofmayhem

Yes and it's over 400 miles from Lake Superior to where the Kensington stone was found

jmccr8

[Unusual Tournament]

12 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

A few miles from what coast?

Do you mean the coast of Lake Superior?

There is a plausible route through the great lakes.

Kensington Minnesota is thousands of miles from the Atlantic Ocean and thousands of miles away from every known Viking settlement. 

I'm not claiming it was impossible for Norsemen, or anyone for that matter, to have traveled all over the place.

But in this case, all the evidence points to a fraud runestone.

They found no village, no weapons, no boats, no bodies and no other corroborating evidence. 

You are seemingly unwilling to accept the premise that people fake artifacts that fuel their own agenda.

 

you are claiming that its a fake because the distance from Minnesota to Newfoundland is too great to cover for the Norsemen. so after sailing 2500km from Norway to Greenland and then again 2000Km from Greenland to Newfoundland the Norsemen would have had trouble sailing or trekking over land for a couple of hundred miles? by your logic, if the Kensington Stone was found in Newfoundland instead or Minnesota then it would be more believable? 

 

[Unusual Tournament]

8 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

Since when do you need the presence of real evidence to produce fake evidence? The idea is enough to create incentive. As for the time disparity, guess when the written versions of the sagas mentioning those earlier voyages date to? C'mon, guess.

As an aside, reading over the transcript, I see is uses the word ships, plural. Not boats. Here again we have the problem of "you can't get there from here", so they would've had a long, hard portage or needed to build new vessels.

I've read your reply a few times and its non-sensical. 

[jaylemurph]

55 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

I've read your reply a few times and its non-sensical. 

That would be you reading comprehension problem. Again.

Everything O. wrote makes sense and is coherent.

--Jaylemurph 

Edited April 18, 2019 by jaylemurph

[Oniomancer]

8 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

That would be you reading comprehension problem. Again.

Everything O. wrote makes sense and is coherent.

--Jaylemurph 

Except for the part where I used is instead of it but too late! No backsies!

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

you are claiming that its a fake because the distance from Minnesota to Newfoundland is too great to cover for the Norsemen. so after sailing 2500km from Norway to Greenland and then again 2000Km from Greenland to Newfoundland the Norsemen would have had trouble sailing or trekking over land for a couple of hundred miles? by your logic, if the Kensington Stone was found in Newfoundland instead or Minnesota then it would be more believable? 

 

Are you daft?

Nowhere did I claim it was fake. I said most of the aspects of it point to being fake. I have no stake to a claim of it being fake. If tomorrow they unearth the dead bodies and clothes and weapons then that gives something to work with.

14 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I'm not claiming it was impossible for Norsemen, or anyone for that matter, to have traveled all over the place.

The linguistics contained on the stone, as pointed out by others, seems to it be a modern forgery. 

The fact that no verified Viking object or settlement has ever been found within a few thousand miles of the site is suspect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Anse_aux_Meadows

We know, for a fact, that Vikings were in Newfoundland. 

Backed up by a archeological site.

By "my logic" it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to find a runestone there. It would still have to be analyzed to confirm its authenticity.

Again, I'm not saying that groups of people throughout the ages couldn't have traveled all over the world.

An intrepid explorer could have traveled all over the place given enough time and resources. And without an established settlement it would be a rare find of evidence. 

That doesn't make the Kensington Runestone real.

[Kenemet]

4 hours ago, Swede said:

Am not personally aware of any other fraudulent artifacts, but after the runestone “discovery” created a wave of excitement,  there have been a number of other “finds” from the area that have been purported to be of Viking origin.

...(snippage)...

1868- End of the use of the Mormon Trail (railroad established).

 

1870- Peace treaty between Ojibwe and Dakota.

 

1898- Runestone surfaces.

 

As one can observe from even this skeletal outline, the period of potential Mormon influence was quite tumultuous.

Another likely scenario was that it was intended to be planted somewhere else and then was not put in place.  It was discarded at the find site instead.

I don't suppose we'll ever know.

[Unusual Tournament]

46 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Are you daft?

Nowhere did I claim it was fake. I said most of the aspects of it point to being fake. I have no stake to a claim of it being fake. If tomorrow they unearth the dead bodies and clothes and weapons then that gives something to work with.

The linguistics contained on the stone, as pointed out by others, seems to it be a modern forgery. 

The fact that no verified Viking object or settlement has ever been found within a few thousand miles of the site is suspect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Anse_aux_Meadows

We know, for a fact, that Vikings were in Newfoundland. 

Backed up by a archeological site.

By "my logic" it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to find a runestone there. It would still have to be analyzed to confirm its authenticity.

Again, I'm not saying that groups of people throughout the ages couldn't have traveled all over the world.

An intrepid explorer could have traveled all over the place given enough time and resources. And without an established settlement it would be a rare find of evidence. 

That doesn't make the Kensington Runestone real.

and I'm not suggesting its real either. just saying that Norsemen could have also been to other places in North America, also. 

forgery? well lets look at what the rhinestone say's...

"8 Swedes and 22 Norwegians on an exploration journey from Vinland westward. We had our camp by 2 rocky islets one day’s journey north of this stone. We were out fishing one day. When we came home we found 10 men red with blood and dead. AVM save us from evil. We have 10 men by the sea to look after our ships, 14 days’ journey from this island. Year 1362."

i really can't see an agenda here, can you? it describes what you would expect travellers to do. they came across some trouble and left a message to warn others of what happened. it doesn't talk of a settlement. it talks of an expedition into America by europeans 130 years before Columbus. i think its fair to reserve judgement until someone else using a modern understanding of runes has another look at it. your information (provided by wikipedia) talks about scholarly debate on the subject in 1910. 

[Swede]

19 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Another likely scenario was that it was intended to be planted somewhere else and then was not put in place.  It was discarded at the find site instead.

I don't suppose we'll ever know.

At least one author (Reiersgord 2001) has suggested a related scenario. This author proposes that the runestone was transported from its point of creation to the find spot by the Dakota over a period of centuries. The point of creation suggested by the author is located approximately 100 air miles east of the find spot and his proposed transport route (flowages and portages) exceeds 400 miles in length.

His much entire (broader) argument is pure speculation and includes such delightful claims as the bloodiness mentioned in the inscription is related to the effects of the bubonlc plague.

.

[jmccr8]

On 4/17/2019 at 8:18 PM, Kenemet said:

It is, but were there other instances of faked artifacts to support Scandinavian culture in the area?  I admit I'm not up on the topic.

Hi Kenemet

I came across this article and will look and see what else there is relative to the find of some of the artifacts mentioned in Hajalmar R Holand's book Westward from Vinland.

Westward from Vinland: A Review on JSTOR

jmccr8

[Swede]

21 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

and I'm not suggesting its real either. just saying that Norsemen could have also been to other places in North America, also. 

forgery? well lets look at what the rhinestone say's...

"8 Swedes and 22 Norwegians on an exploration journey from Vinland westward. We had our camp by 2 rocky islets one day’s journey north of this stone. We were out fishing one day. When we came home we found 10 men red with blood and dead. AVM save us from evil. We have 10 men by the sea to look after our ships, 14 days’ journey from this island. Year 1362."

i really can't see an agenda here, can you? it describes what you would expect travellers to do. they came across some trouble and left a message to warn others of what happened. it doesn't talk of a settlement. it talks of an expedition into America by europeans 130 years before Columbus. i think its fair to reserve judgement until someone else using a modern understanding of runes has another look at it. your information (provided by wikipedia) talks about scholarly debate on the subject in 1910. 

The actual script reads "8 goter" (Goths).

.