Minnesota Vikings - 1362

[unmerged(3708)]

Did Viking explorers (actually Norse by this time) reach the middle of the North American continent as early as 1362?

In the past year, new examinations of a long disputed artifact, the Kensington Runestone (or KRS) suggest that they did. The runestone was unearthed in 1898 by a uprooting trees on a hill near Kensington Minnesota (or about 20 miles SW of Alexandria, MN). The runestone tells of the death of 10 members of a Norse exploration party that ventured inland in the year 1362. Presumably the party would have made use of waterways southward from Hudson Bay which could have brought them within 40 miles of the place the stone was found.

Though bitterly debated over the past century, most scholars have considered the KRS a modern fogery.

However, new information brought to light over the past year seems to authenticate the runestone. Geologic examination of the physical properties of the stone show that the inscribed surface was burried for a considerable length of time, the bare minnimum being 50 years. This means that the inscription predates by at least 10 years the first settlement of the county in 1858. The physical studies on the stone are continuing.
Also in the past few years it has become quite well known among cartographic historians that the appearance of Hudson Bay on maps predates Hudsons voyage by at least 100 years. While there has been some debate on why, in a recent article in Journal of the West it was pointed out that at least two 16th century cartographers give credit for their knowledge of these regions to a now lost book called the Inventio Fortunatae. It is known that the author of this book returned to Bergen from his journey in 1364, a scant two years after the date on the KRS.
Finally, in an article in the Spring 2001 issue of Scandinavian Studies, Dr. Richard Nielsen finds that all the runes, forms, and words on the runestone (a major sticking point) can now be authenticated to the 14th century. Moreover, many of these runes, etc. have only become known in the past 100 years (hence the early consideration that the stone was a fraud). Such information would not have been availible to a 19th century forger, and so is evidence of the stones authenticty.

As a side note, Columbus is known to have read the Inventio Forutunate, and it must be considered that at least some of the basis for his journey came from this far earlier expedition

For more on the runestone see http://www.geocities.com/thetropics/island/3634/index2.html

Michael

PS - One possible leader for the expedition was Paul Knuttson, who was given by royal decree the royal knorr (large trading vessel) and a pick of men for a mission to Greenland and possibly beyond. Hence the following doggerel

In fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue
But Knutsson took the royal knorr
A hundred thirty years before.

 

[Vandelay]

Without saying anything as to the KRS being a fake or not - erecting a runestone in 1362 would have been horribly out of fashion.

The last area in Sweden where runestones were in vogue was Uppland where runestones were raised in the 12th century more than a hundred years after they ceased being erected in Denmark and Norway.

That being said there is plenty of evidence for continued contact beteween Nordic sailors and Native Americans during the Middle Ages (some stray artifacts like pieces of mail, coins etc.) though the cultural impact of this contact was negligable.

Cheers,
Vandelay

 

[unmerged(598)]

There used to be massive threads on the KRS when I used to read the history newsgroups.

Whether the stone is real or not, the one question I never felt was answered satisfactorily was why those Norse settlers carried their boats so far inland.

Wouldn't it be more logical for them to settle on the coast rather than Minnesota?

 

[Agelastus]

Traders could work their way inland, which means the more interesting question becomes where are the artifacts of coastal settlements-at least semi-permanent trading stations must have existed if they did venture that far inland.

Of course, St. Brendan supposedly also reached the Americas. As did an Eleventh or Twelfth century Welsh Prince.

To be honest, and I'm normally one of the most cynical people alive, I suspect they all did. Columbus certainly knew there was something where he was going, he just misinterpreted the available evidence as pertaining to Asia.

 

[unmerged(589)]

I have no special knowledge about the Kensington Stone. I am not an expert on runic inscriptions. However, I am a Swede who has read much about history and archaeology and I have seen many (authentic) runestones "in the flesh".

I am pretty sure that it is a fake.

First, at that time noone had erected a runestone in Scandinavia for hundreds of years. Why would that expedition?

Second, the text doesn't strike me as very authentic-sounding. The mundane travel-report details related, the word "discovery expedition" ("opdagelsefard") which AFAIK was not often (at all?) used in the 14th century, the convenient mentioning of both people from Sweden (Goths) and Norwegians so that people from both countries could take pride in it, and personally I think that the untranslated text sounds very much like modern Norwegian.

Third, coincidence that it was found by a Scandinavian in a heavily Scandinavian-infested area far from the coast?

I have not studied it so maybe I'm wrong, but from this side of the Atlantic it looks like a fake in every way. I'm sure that there may be some, but I have never heard of a Scandinavian rune expert that thinks it is authentic.

 

[unmerged(3708)]

Originally posted by Vandelay
Without saying anything as to the KRS being a fake or not - erecting a runestone in 1362 would have been horribly out of fashion.

The last area in Sweden where runestones were in vogue was Uppland where runestones were raised in the 12th century more than a hundred years after they ceased being erected in Denmark and Norway.

That being said there is plenty of evidence for continued contact beteween Nordic sailors and Native Americans during the Middle Ages (some stray artifacts like pieces of mail, coins etc.) though the cultural impact of this contact was negligable.

Cheers,
Vandelay

While runestones per se had gone out of vogue by the 13th century, certainly the use of runes had not. This is pretty well established by the Bergen finds of numerous runic inscriptions (many of the quite casual) on such items as wooden sticks. Additionally, the use of runes were still found inscribed on grave slabs, often mixed with Roman letters such as is also found on the KRS.

Udoubtably some, if not all of the party would have know of runic monuments (and it must be said that this marker is somewhat atypical of the earlier runestones). While it is difficult to get into the mind of the expedition leader, surely it is not too hard to believe that, under such difficult circumstances, the erecting of an old style marker for morale purposes might well be considered.

 

[unmerged(3708)]

Originally posted by sean9898


Whether the stone is real or not, the one question I never felt was answered satisfactorily was why those Norse settlers carried their boats so far inland.

Wouldn't it be more logical for them to settle on the coast rather than Minnesota?

This was not a voyage of settlement, it was either a voyage of exploreation (opdaglesfardh) or voyage of acquisition (uptaglesfardh) depending on how one of the runes is interpeted. Other explorers throughout history have ventured far from their bases - all it takes is the will to do so, and that is a matter of the individual.

Now the runestone says that the ships were left by the sea 14 days journey away. This could mean either Hudson Bay (days journey could be considered a unit of distance [about 75 miles]) or Lake Winnipeg (which was reffered to as a sea in some Hudson Bay Company maps). I would suggest that at this point they left the knorr, and contiued up the river on smaller boats either ones they had carried with, or acquired from the natives.
In this way they could have travelled up the Red River as far as Fergus Falls (which is only a 10-14 day journey from L Winnipeg) before they ran into any appreciable rapids. The disaster may have befallen them at this point - perhaps the boats were burned or sunk - and the attackers on the N side of the river. It is only at this point that they would have veered away from the water and struck inland. The tree line appears to have run from Fergus Falls southward to the Kensington area.

Michael

 

[unmerged(3708)]

Originally posted by The Brain


I am pretty sure that it is a fake.

First, at that time noone had erected a runestone in Scandinavia for hundreds of years. Why would that expedition?

Second, the text doesn't strike me as very authentic-sounding. The mundane travel-report details related, the word "discovery expedition" ("opdagelsefard") which AFAIK was not often (at all?) used in the 14th century, the convenient mentioning of both people from Sweden (Goths) and Norwegians so that people from both countries could take pride in it, and personally I think that the untranslated text sounds very much like modern Norwegian.

Third, coincidence that it was found by a Scandinavian in a heavily Scandinavian-infested area far from the coast?

I have not studied it so maybe I'm wrong, but from this side of the Atlantic it looks like a fake in every way. I'm sure that there may be some, but I have never heard of a Scandinavian rune expert that thinks it is authentic.

Point 1) Please see previous message.

Point 2a) It is similar to authentic runestones in the following - It first names who raised the stone (8 Goths and 22 Norrmen), gives some detail of the final expedition, a direction from a known point (far west of Vinland), and concludes with a prayer. Evidently the author knew something of classic runestones.
On the other hand, it does vary considerably in several points - it was raised to a group of 10 unnamed men, it contains a side message about men with the ships, etc. If a forger was knowledgeable enough to get the first points correct why screw it up with the 'non-authentic' material? Why not just "Paul Knutsson raised this stone for a brave man, Ivar Redbeard, who fought the skraelings. Gods mother save him" or something similar?
It makes more sense for a 14th century author to include the 'mundane' and 'non-authentic' sounding parts, than some 19th cetured forger.

2b) Although there is no known use of opdaglesfardh in the 14th century, Soderwald, who compiled the Old Swedish dictionary, thought that this was a possible loan word. There was no specific word known for an exploration journey at this time - so borrowing a word (and possibly in use amongst sailors, but generally unknown) would not be surprising.
Nielsen however thinks that the thorn rune should here be translated as a /t/ rather than a /d/ giving a voyage of acquisition <furs? land?> a valid 14th centruy construction, rather than the voyage of exploration.

2c) The date on the stone gives one of the few midieval times when such a voyage of Goths and Norrmen could make such an exploration together [assuming the original order was given by K Magnus Erickson]. At least our author had a good knowledge of history, if not living it.

2d) Please see Nilesen's article - he notes a large number of words which were correct for 14th century Sweden (most likely the Bohuslan or Dalsland area - based on the e-dialect used in the stone) but which are not Modern Swedish.

3. As previously noted, based on hard science (the mica deterioration in the inscribed surfaces), the inscription was cut prior to and Scandinavians living in the region - or any Europeans living there for that matter. There was a trail that went nearby starting in the 1820s, but this was used almost soley by metis ox cart drivers running goods from St. Paul to Winnipeg.

Re: Scancinvain runologists. You might want to check out William Thalbitzer's paper on the runestone - he was a trained philologist who worked in Greenland and wrote a paper comparing a runic stone from Greenland with the KRS, published by the Smithsonian circa 1950. This report was quite favorable to the Kensington Stone.

Michael

PS - It is intresting to note that critics here have not addressed the points put forward in my message. It seems that these points would need to be considered if the KRS is to be shown to be a forgery.

 

[Vandelay]

Whenever an object would break a "paradigm" it is, as is proper, heavily scrutinized.

Your points on linguistics I cannot criticize not being a linguist.

The text on the runestone is not very reminiscent of texts on Scandinavian runestones. On the other hand the stone being purportedly from 1362 could explain this.

The 1362 date is in my eyes the weakest link - erecting runestones as has been stated before had been passé for 200 years. The fact that runes were used in other contexts until the 19th century doesn´t change this. I could see a runestone being erected by a Swedish scholar in the 17th century when runes and Sweden´s "Gothic" past was heavily romanticized and played on in royal propaganda but not in 1362.

The petroglyphic analysis surely would have a margin of error? - Almost all scientific dating methods do. Is the test based on wear of the carving or is it based on an analysis of light absorption?

(Carvings are extremely difficult to date other than linguistically - rock art in Sweden is dated to the bronze age mostly because the carvings depict objects that are know to be from the period)

BTW I´m not really decided on the issue just a little sceptical.

/Vandelay

PS. Nice to discuss this though - unfortunately most archaeological/ historical newsgroups are completely dominated by loons.DS

 

[unmerged(589)]

It is impossible for me to quickly read all about it and form a meaningful opionion, since I don't know which people in all those different fields that are competent/incompetent, balanced/'I want to believe' and so on. To really 'get into' it would be quite an effort, sadly I lack the energy.

For what it's worth I am as I said pretty sure it's a fake (though I of course, as always, am open to the possibility that it's not).

'Hard science' has errors, and is sometimes just plain wrong (I am a scientist), and I cannot say anything about the dating data since I know nothing about such matters.

I don't mean to sound negative in an uninformed kind of way, but maybe I just have seen too many Discovery documentaries about 'amazing new discoveries about ancient civilizations' etc.

 

[unmerged(3708)]

Originally posted by Vandelay
Whenever an object would break a "paradigm" it is, as is proper, heavily scrutinized.

I would have to agree. And perhaps the greatest problem with the Kensington Stone is not that it does break the paradigm so completely. The whole idea of a Norse penetration into almost the center of the North American continent is so patently absurd that it is almost a given the the KRS must be a fake. Indeed this was one of the original reasons it was thought a forgery.
For a long time the paradigm of the Greenland Norse was that this was an isolated colony, with no interaction in the world beyond the settlements. The Sagas were looked upon as something as much mythic as historic.
It was not until L'Anse aux Meadows, that it was firmly accepted that the Vikings did travel along the coast of Canada, and created the first known settlement in North Amercia. This has shifted the paradigm a bit.
The finding of Norse artifacts, even as far away as the west coast of Hudson Bay, is shifting the paradigm further - it is accepted that there was trade with the indigenous peoples of the area, that they travelled on a regular basis to the continent for lumber and trade goods.
But the KRS requires an even further shift.
Had the stone been found in the post L'anse era on Baffin Island, or Ungava Bay, with the same essential message and 'errors', I believe that it would have been accepted as a major and important archaelogical find. But because Minnesota is so far from the known points of contact, the paradigm stil says it cant be authentic, and must be a forgery.
Thus, in trying to authenticate the stone it becomes necessary not just to deal with the specific facts of the case, but the paradigm as well. Personally I see no reason not to beleive that a single expedition, a one-shot deal, could have come so far from its base, met with disaster and simply never tried again. To that extent the paradigm is simplified from Norse Greenlanders making major explorations of the continent, to a single well backed adventurer on a personal mission for gold and glory.

Your points on linguistics I cannot criticize not being a linguist.

The text on the runestone is not very reminiscent of texts on Scandinavian runestones. On the other hand the stone being purportedly from 1362 could explain this.

The 1362 date is in my eyes the weakest link - erecting runestones as has been stated before had been passé for 200 years. The fact that runes were used in other contexts until the 19th century doesn´t change this. I could see a runestone being erected by a Swedish scholar in the 17th century when runes and Sweden´s "Gothic" past was heavily romanticized and played on in royal propaganda but not in 1362.

It is perhaps incorrect to call the stone a runestone in the classic sense. It is a runic marker carved in stone, having some of the elements of a runestone while not others are not. It is cut, for instance, in 'manuscript' style, that is, left to right in neatly cut rows.
In many ways I consider this more of a 'letter home' or 'message in a bottle' - some forlorn means of trying to leave something behind - than a runestone. It is my understanding that messages were still being cut in stone from time to time, even in the 14th century. In this case, it would be necessary to cut the message into stone if it were to survive - and runes would be the logical way in which to do it.

The petroglyphic analysis surely would have a margin of error? - Almost all scientific dating methods do. Is the test based on wear of the carving or is it based on an analysis of light absorption?

(Carvings are extremely difficult to date other than linguistically - rock art in Sweden is dated to the bronze age mostly because the carvings depict objects that are know to be from the period)

The initial study gave a range of a minimum of 50-200 years. This was based primarily on an examination of the mica deterioration with a scanning electron microscope. Thre were, I blieve other factors involoved. Though the inscription had been scraped out, possibly with a nail, early on there was still enough unscraped area to note that there was oxidation of the naturally occuring iron in the rock which was quite different than the oxidation which occured in the scraped out areas (additionally a mark was put in the stone about 8 years after it finding which could be used as a control.)

The original testing was done by a group called American Petrographics, who gave the minimum 50-200 year estimation. This study has since been repeated at the University of Minnesota, which I understand has essentially confirmed the first report, but I dont have any specifics at this time.

Further testing is to be done. One possibility that has been brought up it to artifically age a chip of the stone under heat/pressure/whatever (I dont know precisely the parameters necessary) and use that as a base line for how the particular material ages and compare it to the deterioration noted in the stone.
Some suggestion has been made that similar stones ( such as granite which has a like mica component), gravestones for instance, also be examined in an attempt to get a general picture of mica deterioration.

You are correct though that weathering of the inscription is a difficult was to assess the age of an inscription. Linguistic keys are probably more accurate, if it is assumed the stone is genuine in the first place. In this case though, it has been assumed the the stone is a forgery, and the linguistics examined, for the most part, for keys to show that it is a fake.
It is not likely that an truely accurate date can be affixed by the geologic testing, but it sounds like some general idea can be gleamed from this work as to how long it was in the ground. Essentially the only thing that really needs to be done is to set a minimal date of 100 years of in ground aging. This would predate almost all explorations into the region.

BTW I´m not really decided on the issue just a little sceptical.

/Vandelay

PS. Nice to discuss this though - unfortunately most archaeological/ historical newsgroups are completely dominated by loons.DS

Part of how I got involved in this stuff. Was reading up on the KRS, and saw a lot of crap being posted in discussion groups. I dont mind solidly based discussion, but I was seeing a lot of BS, and even more flaming going on.
Started putting in my 2 cents worth, and respoding to other people, which requrired more research, before putting in another 2 cents...
viscious cycle.

Michael

 

[unmerged(3708)]

Couple of questions:

I heard from someone who was over in Sweden a few years ago, that in general there was a disintrest in things Viking or runic. It was suggested by the person that part of this was a result of Hitler's attempt to use this Germanic history/mysticism for public relations purposes.
Any truth in this, or were his opinions off?


Also, if the three points I originally posted are true
1. The stone predates the settlement of the county in which it was found by at least 10 years.
2. There is some evidence of an expedition reaching Hudson Bay circa 1362 and
3. There are no linguistic problems with the stone, rather there there are words/forms/runes which are correct 14th century usage but could not have been known as such in the 19th century.

Is this enough evidence to prove, to a high the degree of probability,
the authenticity of the KRS?

Michael

 

[unmerged(589)]

Originally posted by mzalar
Couple of questions:

I heard from someone who was over in Sweden a few years ago, that in general there was a disintrest in things Viking or runic. It was suggested by the person that part of this was a result of Hitler's attempt to use this Germanic history/mysticism for public relations purposes.
Any truth in this, or were his opinions off?

His opinions were off. Vikings and runes are as strong as ever in Sweden. That being said there are elements within the government that tend to have strange ideas about historical matters influenced by contemporary events. But they are laughed at by the well-informed public.

Originally posted by mzalar

Also, if the three points I originally posted are true
1. The stone predates the settlement of the county in which it was found by at least 10 years.
2. There is some evidence of an expedition reaching Hudson Bay circa 1362 and
3. There are no linguistic problems with the stone, rather there there are words/forms/runes which are correct 14th century usage but could not have been known as such in the 19th century.

Is this enough evidence to prove, to a high the degree of probability,
the authenticity of the KRS?

Michael

Sure.

 

[Vandelay]

Any truth in this, or were his opinions off?

Off, I´d say. There has been an academic reaction to the former romanticizing of the Viking Age. This reaction emphasizes the role of women and the fact that only a small percantage (at most) of the population during the Viking Age were actually Vikings (in a strict sense).

Dozens of Viking Age sites are investigated every year in rescue archaeology digs. Research digs are being carried out all over Scandinavia - Fröjel and Birka in Sweden. I´ll be digging in Kaupang, Norway later this summer (shameless plug...)


Kaupang investigation


It is true though that the Swedish Nazis have embraced the Vikings in their idiotic beliefs that the Vikings were the SS of their era - idiots will be idiots, I guess.

Cheers,
Vandelay

 

[unmerged(234)]

Originally posted by mzalar
It is perhaps incorrect to call the stone a runestone in the classic sense. It is a runic marker carved in stone, having some of the elements of a runestone while not others are not. It is cut, for instance, in 'manuscript' style, that is, left to right in neatly cut rows.
In many ways I consider this more of a 'letter home' or 'message in a bottle' - some forlorn means of trying to leave something behind - than a runestone. It is my understanding that messages were still being cut in stone from time to time, even in the 14th century. In this case, it would be necessary to cut the message into stone if it were to survive - and runes would be the logical way in which to do it.

Yes, then its creation would be logical. A traditional runestone would not, since they where works of art done by professionals near habitations centers or well travel road ans as mentioned before had been out of style for over 200 years. So a traditional runestone with placing and age would make no sense at all.

The knowledge of runes where still common during that period of time(at least in Sweden and Norway, not sure about Denmark).

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by mzalar
Also, if the three points I originally posted are true
1. The stone predates the settlement of the county in which it was found by at least 10 years.
2. There is some evidence of an expedition reaching Hudson Bay circa 1362 and
3. There are no linguistic problems with the stone, rather there there are words/forms/runes which are correct 14th century usage but could not have been known as such in the 19th century.

Is this enough evidence to prove, to a high the degree of probability,
the authenticity of the KRS?

Michael [/B]

Yes, those three might do it. Unfortunately I don't know if there will ever be a satisfactory answer.

Just a couple of questions:

[1] Is there any way that the stone could have originated somewhere other than Minnesota? Could it be from another area?

[2] What were the Norse doing heading that far inland?

[3] Who/Why would deliberately fake the stone, and is it even possible to fake it?

 

[unmerged(3708)]

Originally posted by sean9898


Yes, those three might do it. Unfortunately I don't know if there will ever be a satisfactory answer.

Just a couple of questions:

[1] Is there any way that the stone could have originated somewhere other than Minnesota? Could it be from another area?

[2] What were the Norse doing heading that far inland?

[3] Who/Why would deliberately fake the stone, and is it even possible to fake it?

1. The rock itself seems to be greenstone?? greywacke, a glacial erratic whose probable origin was in SE Ontario. It appears to have been cleaved off from a larger formation and carried into the region on the Lauratian glacier.
In 1909 a geologist, Newton Winchell, who was examining the KRS for the Minnesota historical society, was in the region and said he found 5 in 100 stones to be 'similar' to the KRS stone, and one 'exactly like' the stone. The stone seems to be native to the area.

2. The stone says it was a 'journey of exploration' or 'journey of acquisition' depending on the translation.
There is an order from dated from K. Magnus to Paul Knutson allowing him to take the royal knorr and conscripting any men he feels necessary, including from the kings bodyguard. Knutson is to go to Greenland to not let Christianity perish there. Apparently there were reports that some of the Norse Greenlanders had gone native - the western colony had been abandoned some years before.
This may have been ordered, in part, to appease the papacy to whom the king was in debt. He had been given half the annual tithe to conduct a crusade against the Russians, but due to the Black Death this crusade never took place (though he had led previous unsucsessful expeditions to Russia).

Some historians, even prior to the finding of the KRS, believed that this mission might have been given other orders to explore westward. It is certainly possible that they may have believed Cathay was in this direction (as did Columbus many years later). One Jesuit noted that the Great Kahn owned white falcons, one of the exports of Greenland, and so perhaps Cathay was also believed close to the region.

If the later were true, it would make sense to go inland. Most of the rivers along the Atlantic coast of Canada would have been fairly small - rivers that could be from large islands. But the Nelson River was most assuridly of a continental stature. It was also the point on Hudson Bay ( the western side anyway) where travellers would have found the most abundent vegitation - the boreal forest comes relatively closer, even today, to the coast at this point than anywhere else in the area.

However, it does not require some historical imperitive to find a reason. All that is really necessary is for one person, the expedition's leader to be enchanted by the Sagas and dreams of far off lands, or be inspired by thoughts of God and Gold. There always have been and always will be those that need to know what is around the next bend or over the next hill.

3. If a forgery, it does not appear to have been done for profit. The finder certainly did not make anything on the stone, and did not make any attempt to push it as an item of intrest - it just layed in his granery (some say as a step) for years after it was first denounced.
One suggestion was that it was forged during an upswing of Scandinavian nationalism in the late 19th century. Some others think that it was made as a joke. It is as impossible to look into the mind of a forger for a motive as it would be a 14th century engraver.
I would suggest though, that if a forgery it would have been someone local. A traveller trying to produce a hoax would have found a much better location for such a stone, either on the Red River or the shores of Lake Superior. Either location would seem a much more likely spot for a Norseman to get to.

Critics of the stone point to numerous runological and linguistic errors in the inscription. Nielsen's paper tells us that the runes and language are correct for the 14th century - but that some of the knowledge necessary to show the correctness of these points was not known until the 20th century. If Nielsen is right, then it seems highly unlikely that any forger could have created the inscription on the KRS.
But if the runes are in error, why would a forger make such errors? Linguistically he may have been just faking it, but there were numerous 19th century books that contained futhorks - the finder of the runestone is known to have owned a grammer that contained runes, and history books (one such book was even reprinted in a newspaper) also contained the necessary information.
Why wouldn't a forger of the runestone have made use of the information that appears to have been readily availible?!

Michael

 

[unmerged(3708)]

Originally posted by sean9898


Yes, those three might do it. Unfortunately I don't know if there will ever be a satisfactory answer.

Just a couple of questions:

[1] Is there any way that the stone could have originated somewhere other than Minnesota? Could it be from another area?

[2] What were the Norse doing heading that far inland?

[3] Who/Why would deliberately fake the stone, and is it even possible to fake it?

1. The rock itself seems to be greenstone?? greywacke, a glacial erratic whose probable origin was in SE Ontario. It appears to have been cleaved off from a larger formation and carried into the region on the Lauratian glacier.
In 1909 a geologist, Newton Winchell, who was examining the KRS for the Minnesota historical society, was in the region and said he found 5 in 100 stones to be 'similar' to the KRS stone, and one 'exactly like' the stone. The stone seems to be native to the area.

2. The stone says it was a 'journey of exploration' or 'journey of acquisition' depending on the translation.
There is an order from dated from K. Magnus to Paul Knutson allowing him to take the royal knorr and conscripting any men he feels necessary, including from the kings bodyguard. Knutson is to go to Greenland to not let Christianity perish there. Apparently there were reports that some of the Norse Greenlanders had gone native - the western colony had been abandoned some years before.
This may have been ordered, in part, to appease the papacy to whom the king was in debt. He had been given half the annual tithe to conduct a crusade against the Russians, but due to the Black Death this crusade never took place (though he had led previous unsucsessful expeditions to Russia).

Some historians, even prior to the finding of the KRS, believed that this mission might have been given other orders to explore westward. It is certainly possible that they may have believed Cathay was in this direction (as did Columbus many years later). One Jesuit noted that the Great Kahn owned white falcons, one of the exports of Greenland, and so perhaps Cathay was also believed close to the region.

If the later were true, it would make sense to go inland. Most of the rivers along the Atlantic coast of Canada would have been fairly small - rivers that could be from large islands. But the Nelson River was most assuridly of a continental stature. It was also the point on Hudson Bay ( the western side anyway) where travellers would have found the most abundent vegitation - the boreal forest comes relatively closer, even today, to the coast at this point than anywhere else in the area.

However, it does not require some historical imperitive to find a reason. All that is really necessary is for one person, the expedition's leader to be enchanted by the Sagas and dreams of far off lands, or be inspired by thoughts of God and Gold. There always have been and always will be those that need to know what is around the next bend or over the next hill.

3. If a forgery, it does not appear to have been done for profit. The finder certainly did not make anything on the stone, and did not make any attempt to push it as an item of intrest - it just layed in his granery (some say as a step) for years after it was first denounced.
One suggestion was that it was forged during an upswing of Scandinavian nationalism in the late 19th century. Some others think that it was made as a joke. It is as impossible to look into the mind of a forger for a motive as it would be a 14th century engraver.
I would suggest though, that if a forgery it would have been someone local. A traveller trying to produce a hoax would have found a much better location for such a stone, either on the Red River or the shores of Lake Superior. Either location would seem a much more likely spot for a Norseman to get to.

Critics of the stone point to numerous runological and linguistic errors in the inscription. Nielsen's paper tells us that the runes and language are correct for the 14th century - but that some of the knowledge necessary to show the correctness of these points was not known until the 20th century. If Nielsen is right, then it seems highly unlikely that any forger could have created the inscription on the KRS.
But if the runes are in error, why would a forger make such errors? Linguistically he may have been just faking it, but there were numerous 19th century books that contained futhorks - the finder of the runestone is known to have owned a grammer that contained runes, and history books (one such book was even reprinted in a newspaper) also contained the necessary information.
Why wouldn't a forger of the runestone have made use of the information that appears to have been readily availible?!

Michael

 

[unmerged(598)]

mzalar, thanks for the info, in your opinion will we ever have an answer which can either prove or disprove the stone?

 

[unmerged(3708)]

Originally posted by sean9898
mzalar, thanks for the info, in your opinion will we ever have an answer which can either prove or disprove the stone?

Barry Hanson, a retired chemist living in northern Wisconsin is currently co-ordinating the geophysical research on the KRS. He has taken the position that it is not up to him to do the actual testing of the stone or to interpet the results. He is merely organising the testing of the stone - and there are quite a number of possibilities that he is suggesting for the tests (an article in the Winter 2001 issue of Journal of the West ennumerates some of these suggestions).

I think that these tests are the best hope for an answer that contains any certainty. Linguistics can always be disputed, 14th century forms on the stone that would not be known in the 19th century can be put down to a lucky guess, but if the physical evidence shows the inscription must have been made at least 100 years before the finding, then I would consider that solid proof of the stones authenticity.
It will take several years of testing and interpeting the results to get to that point, however the process has begun. How quickly these results are accepted is another question - it is difficult to change the minds of those who have entrenched themselves in a specific position. It would also require a fairly major pardigm shift even for those not involved in the runestone question.
So, I think the answer may be known in the next 5 years, but it may be a generation before that answer is accepted.

Michael