I don't think that people will take so long to accept a possible proof of authenticity. Earlier the stone stood for pre-Columbus Scandinavian presence in North America, now it "just" stands for Scandinavian presence in Minnesota (since we already have proved that Vikings were in America before Columbus). The shift of paradigm is pretty small.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Given that viking settlement on mainland NA is now accepted, I would be surprised if enterprising, if apparently unsuccesful, individuals had not explored down the coast or inland.
Call me a weird Minnesotan, who happens to have a goodly amount of norde blood, but I was in the dark, before I saw a special on our local ABC affiliate several months back. I'm from up north, so we don't deal too much them there southern folk.
Anyway Sean9898 asked my question, regarding possible movement from original locale.
I'm as skeptical as most, but I'm leaning toward this being authentic
Anyway Sean9898 asked my question, regarding possible movement from original locale.
I'm as skeptical as most, but I'm leaning toward this being authentic
http://webserv5.startribune.com/stO...N--MYSTERYST&date=11-Aug-2001&word=kensington
They found a new stone.
They found a new stone.
Just to get one thing clear, there where no Vikings in Minnesota or anywhere else in the 14th century. There may or may not have been Scandinavians in Minnesota then but since the Viking era was truely past they where not Vikings.