Talk:Kensington Runestone/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Runes and Guilds

The knowledge and meaning of these runes was quite widespread in the guilds.

One wonders exactly how widespread the knowledge and meaning of the runes really were if it took more than one hundred years to discover them. Perhaps the author of the quote would be kind enough to offer a source for the assertion. - Inquiring Mind, 3 Aug 2004 (posted by anon at 12.74.169.77, 02:53, 3 Aug 2004)

This text is pretty biassed.--Wiglaf 08:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While it had been suggested in the paper on the Larsson notes, there is no example of the Larsson runerows having been used for secret messages. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, there is no examples of runes being used as a secret code in any Guilds whatsoever. The idea that the Larsson runes may have been used as a code apparently springs from the fact that the final alphabet on the paper is a cypher known as the Masonic code or the pigpen code, which dates back to at least circa 1600. This later code was simple and fairly common, and was used by soldiers in the civil war, among other things. In fact, as best I know, the source of the Larsson runerows is unknown. It could be modern or it could be ancient. One of the unusual runes in the first runerow can be dated to the early 14th century with most examples in the Codex Runicus of Scanian Law, though it was used in calanders after that date.

Language

"Illy or illnes is actually the name of the Bubonic plague or Black Death in early medieval times and since it is a word of English descent it led Oluf Rygh et al to call the stone a hoax from the beginning." Ill is not of english descent, it is of old norse descent, and was also borrowed into english... Rygh should have known about that, if he was a runologist... But it is probably rather the strange overall appearance that he objected against.

The word in question above has usually been translated as illu (evil). This translation has been accepted even by opponents of the runestones authenticity, such as Noreen, and Jansson, while nearly all others made no objection to this translation. Further, the phrase "save from evil" as a part of the Our Father prayer makes perfect sense here. I have therefore converted changed that part of the translation - mz

In English, ill will doesn't mean sickiness. Wyss 04:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a Norwegian, I find the text very easy to understand. Usually, reading texts that are older than from say the 17th c. are really difficult, or close to impossible to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.98.37 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 November 2006

Speaking as another Norwegian, I have the same impression. This, of course, is an extremely serious problem for those who argue for its authenticity. 158.38.145.115 13:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a Norwegian page on this stone? If so, what does it say? Hanfresco 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There is, but it's just a stub. The Swedish version is very skeptical.Jon kare 14:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Runic Numbers

Thalbitzer argued in 1951 that the date 1314 is done with pentadic number as (1)(3)/(1)(4) in the left margin on two seperate lines of the Kingigtossuaq stone form Greenland. It could also be argued that the pentadic numbers were not generally known in the 19th century, as can be seen in the fact the the first translations of the KRS did not give a translation for the runic numbers which had them baffled.

When was this Kingigtossuaq stone supposedly made, and where could I find more info about it?

The place is in fact named Kingigtorssuaq. I added a reference to the book in the References section and wrote a stub on William Thalbitzer. -- Petri Krohn 02:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. In fact Kingigtorssuaq (Hjortetakken) is a 1184 meters high mountain in Nuuk. -- Petri Krohn 02:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. I created a new article at Kingigtorssuaq Runestone. -- Petri Krohn 04:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The section on pentadic numbers says that they have never been found on a "verified" Runestone. I believe this is not a neutral point of view but is an unsubstantiable statement. Verification implies authority in an area of great controversey. Is the Kingigtorssuaq Runestone verified? Does anyone provide substantial argument to persuade that it is a modern forgery? Doc Rock 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Author's Note

As a major contributer to this article, I think that as a proper disclaimer I should note that after 7 years of study it is my personal belief that the Kensington Runestone is an authentic artifact from the 14th century. While I have tried to write a balanced article, it should be noted that any bias that has crept is is likely slanted toward the authenticity argument. Michael Zalar

Orphan paragraph

I found this paragraph in the text section, it sounds vaguely familiar but there seems to be nothing in the article relating to it, so I'm putting it here for now until someone can think of what to do with it.Wyss 10:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is a parallel proposal for the destruction of the Native American town of Cahokia due to black death, estimated to be inhabited by 25,000 peoples according to modern scholars. However, this is just a hypothesis.

Ok, this is similar to another indication of pre-columbian european contact with native Americans in the Mandan tribe, which had blue eyed/fair-skinned members, lived in huts with European/Scandinavian features and had fragments of religious myths which were without doubt of Christian origin. For example, it has been speculated that our carvers of the Kensington Runestone were eventually assimilated into the Mandans. However, there is also a possibility of pre-columbian Welsh contact with the Mandans, and the entire topic is really tangental to whether or not the stone was carved by Vikings so I suggest both the Mandan anomoly and the Cahokia epidemic be left out of this article. Wyss 17:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've done a major cleanup of syntax and style, rendering standard, crisp encyclopedic English without disturbing content or detail a bit (although if I've inadvertantly done, please fix it!).

I've read about this before, and had no idea what to think about it (19th century forgeries of artifacts were so common). Now I lean towards thinking the stone's plausibly 14th century. I think it probably is, based on the documented "beyond Greenland" exploratory voyage, mica erosion and the idea that the linguistic anamolies are echoes of dialect, which can develop quickly in far flung populations. What a fascinating mystery! Wyss 10:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The allusions to "a book published" here and "an article" there are not the equivalent of references. Are any titles available? --Wetman 11:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? (I'm sure it's something to attend to but I can't figure out what non-references you mean) Wyss 12:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I've completed a second pass. I've added a smidgen of detail about the reason for the voyage to Greenland. The content was superb IMO but the English needed a good shearing and re-combing, which I have done. Again, please feel free to fix anything I've lost or botched! Wyss 17:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I've made a third pass, adding bits of detail and some qualifications. The early provenance is a bit muddled (but not too bad, considering the natural unreliability of eyewitnesses). The timing of its discovery by a Swedish farmer was truly unfortunate and suspicious. One commentator has mentioned the stone might have been taken more seriously if it had been found by a French-speaking farmer in Quebec (and thirty years earlier or later might have helped!). Wyss 03:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have finished up for now by cleaning the opening of this talk page (no content removed, just format stuff). Wyss 05:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone else think the following phrase from the first paragraph of this article is biased? It states "...but most scholars and historians dismiss it as a prank or hoax." Based on the rest of the article, as well as my personal knowledge of the debate (living less than 25 miles away from Kensington), I believe it should be changed to "some scholars and historians dismiss it as a prank or hoax." "Most" implies that a significant majority of experts agree, thus downplaying the controversy surrounding the stone. The use of "some" would more accurately reflect the distribution of the acedemic community on the issue. -Josh Doebbert

Viking

The word "Viking" should really not be used on any 14th century Scandinavian. By this time the last viking had been dead for at least 250 years Fornadan 00:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In rewriting and expanding the opening sentences to show the dispute, I also changed "Viking" to "Scandinavian explorers". Be bold and change it elsewhere in the article if the current wording is incorrect. Jonathunder 01:50, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Move page?

The article text capitalizes "Runestone" throughout when refering to this specific stone, treating it as proper noun. So do most of the sources. Shouldn't we move this page to Kensington Runestone? Jonathunder 03:19, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll move the page to Kensington Runestone. Jonathunder 23:07, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Done, and "what links here" redirects and articles updated. Jonathunder 02:02, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Picture

This article could really benefit from a good picture of the stone, or perhaps the replica, at least. Anyone know of a free image? Jonathunder 01:05, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

There is a picture accompanying the 1910 Minnesota Historical Society Report here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2000.03.0048;query=spage%3D%23240;layout=;loc=220 which is no longer protected by copyright. I'm not sure how to post it up here though. (The link should get you directly to the picture, but its possible that you will have to go back and forth a few pages on the site).

Larssen

There is no mention of the Larssen ms. - See http://seattlepi.com/national/168635_prank12.html

Sure it's mentioned. Pls sign your posts with four tildes, thnks. Wyss 14:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Inscription Change

I changed "ded" to "theth", if people claim that the rune should be interpreted as "th" in the rest of the document, it should be read as "th" here, too... (Of course, I am fully aware that the word has never been pronounced with a th-sound in Scandinavian, but I think it's only consistent. Naturally, I think that the "th" idea is just a bad attempt of explaning the word "oppdage".) Also, I don't understand how an R-rune could be interpreted as "der" in norder, but I am willing to accept an explanation of that.

Location on main north-south waterway

The section on location is somewhat original but not truly original research. The sources are maps more than literary works.

I studied the issue a year ago. (Too bad I no longer have the references available.) It seems that none of the Runestone related material on (the web) refers to the portage. In fact it is almost impossible to find any reference to a north-south portage anywhere. The Chicago portage has huge economic importance. No one in historic times seems to have shown any interest in traveling between the Hudson Bay and the Mississippi river.

On maps the potential waterway is however clearly visible. The Nelson River is the largest river running into the Hudson Bay. The Red River of the North again is the largest river running into Lake Winnipeg. The southbound outflow from Lake Agassiz (the largest lake ever?) carved a huge riverbed, more like a canyon. At the southern end of the Red River it is about 1 km wide with walls 50 m high.

One description of the route: http://www.hudsonbayexpedition.com/route.html

-- Petri Krohn 09:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not original research since people have been speculating (in writing) for at least 100 years that Kensington may have been on a natural waterway/portage route of some kind from Hudson Bay. However, I NPoV'd the text, cleaned it up and refactored the headers in an effort to make it as encyclopedic as possible. Wyss 09:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Sorry, but this article just isn't up to NPOV standards, especially the "Conclusions" section. For instance: "a stunning prank left by someone with knowledge of obscure medieval runes.. apparently unknown to most professional linguists.." etc. Nobody sceptical of this stone believes the forger knew about these obscure runes, but rather the more likely explanation is that it is a mere coincidence: The forger invented some runes which had independently been used elsewhere. Same goes for the grammar: Given enough texts you can always find someone else making the same error or irregularity.

Please try re-reading it first, since the article clearly lists that as only one of several possibilities. Wyss 21:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I see that it does that. The bias isn't in that the opposing viewpoint isn't presented, it's in how it is presented. Why say that the prankster must have had knowledge of these (in the 19th century) unknown runes, when the people claiming it's a hoax aren't saying that they did? --BluePlatypus 21:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Most skeptics acknowledge that the runes are rather sophisticated. I think it's NPoV to characterise any prank that has caused sincere debate for over a century as "stunning." However, I may have missed what you're getting at. Could you re-phrase your concern if my answer was off? Wyss 21:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

My main concern here was that the assertion "IF it is a forgery THEN the forger MUST have known these things.". Where that condition is not true. The proponents of the hoax theory don't say the forger MUST have known these things. They consider it just as likely if not more likely the forger may not have known these things and just happened upon them by coincidence. By (falsely) implying that the forger MUST have had knowledge of things that were not known by experts at the time, the bar is raised for the 'hoax' theory using arguments not supported by those in favor of it. That is not NPOV at all.

Well I still think adjectives with emotional charge like 'stunning', 'haunting' and so on should be used sparsely in encyclopedic text - the reader should be presented with the facts and evaluate them themselves. It also gives an overly dramatic tone, IMO. But that's just style, and not what my main concern was here. --BluePlatypus 15:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, there hasn't been any sincere debate, IMHO. The experts have practicly been unanimous in considering the thing a fake. The fact that a group of enthusiasts continue to search for excuses hasn't really changed that. See also: Flat earth society, creationism, electric universe and whatnot. --BluePlatypus 18:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Totally non-NPOV: "Larsson's notes eliminate any possibility that the unusual runes were made up on the spot by the stone's author." --Says who?

Because the runes in his notes pre-date the stone. However, I agree the line could be re-worded to more carefully specify the logic and chronology. Wyss 21:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean: That the runes on his note pre-date the stone in the 19th century. I can agree with that. But AFAICT, there is no evidence that Larsson's runes are from the 14th century or earlier. --BluePlatypus 21:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The absence of evidence is not equivalent to the presence of evidence, it's the opposite of the presence of evidence. Wyss 21:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think what you mean to say is: "Absence of proof of the negative is not proof of the positive". Which is exactly my point. Saying "There is no evidence these runes weren't used in the 14th century" is not evidence that they were. There simply isn't any evidence either way, because noone seems to have seen them outside of Larsson's document. That does not mean that it's equally likely that they were from the 14th century as it does for the 19th century. --BluePlatypus 15:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No, that's a different point (proving the negative etc). Anyway, I don't think the article asserts equal likelihoods of anything. Wyss 19:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There are also of factual errors. Like the referencing to "Vikings". Especially if you're talking about the 14th century. --BluePlatypus 21:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Be bold! Try an alternative descriptor and cite your reason. I don't see a need for a dispute tag. Please feel free to participate in editing this article! Wyss 21:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well to be more specific: "Viking" is a term largely invented by 19th century romantics. It only appears on a few runestones, and seems there to adress specific groups of people. The idea of a large homogenous 'viking' civilization in Scandinavia is today a rather discredited idea. So 'viking' is simply not a good term for serious historical discussion. 'Viking-age' is an accepted term though. But in any case, the Viking age ended in the year 1000. After that time they're just Danes, Swedes, Norwegians. --BluePlatypus 21:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with you. Since the whole story began in the 19th century, the article has artifacts of 19th century terminology which have crept along with the sources. Please fix that? Wyss 21:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm changing the "Opinion swings" heading to just "Debate". I don't think you can neutrally say the opinion has "swinged". The majority of experts in the field have consistently considered the thing a fake. I'm not quite happy with the 'Debate' header either, (nor the general layout of the article), but at least it's more neutral. --BluePlatypus 21:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents/Purpose

Has anybody wondered why the explorers would have written this message on a stone? I tend to think the stone is a hoax for just this reason -- the whole text points so much to "Look, you fools of later centuries, we actually were here long before you thought about it!"

I mean, why would they write that they took "a long voyage to the West"? I mean, you wouldn't leave a message in New York, stating you just made a trip to New York...

What's the purpose of saying "We've left a number of people behind there and then", when you can safely assume it would be years before the next person discovered the stone...?

Is there any more scholarly discussion of the stone text? -- Syzygy 14:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"The Vikings in America" by Erik Wahlgren argues pretty strongly for the stone being a forgery. It's a good read. Awiseman 19:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This is something the scholars indeed have discussed (and I've been meaning to include it, but the article needs a revamp in general, IMO). And yes, it is indeed one of the main reasons people believe it's a forgery. Aside from the odd location and point in time it was found, and peculiar runes and grammar, the text of the stone is also extremely odd in style. Runes were sacred, and their texts are usually quite lofty, and don't contain the details contained on this one, such as dates. The style of writing is very odd. For example, "wi war ok fiske" literally translated means "we were and were fishing", as opposed to "wi fiske" ("we were fishing"). This redundancy is typical of modern spoken swedish/norwegian, but not of the written language. It's like finding a IM-speak text written on parchment with a quill. --BluePlatypus 23:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I read on the Internet from someone that thought it would be very strange that Vikings/Norse explorers who had travelled to basically the other side of the world and were nearly dying from sickness would choose to maintain their very last strength to write a rune stone that no-one in the country would be able to read... 81.232.72.53 13:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I exchanged emails a few years ago with a psychologist specializing in groups under stress regarding this issue. The psychologist said (if I may paraphrase, I don't have the specific email in front of me) that inscribing a runestone, even if they felt there was little chance of anyone finding it, is consistant with what a group might do in that situation. It deals more with validating themselves than communication with others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzalar (talk • contribs) 04:51, 26 January 2006

Remember, these people would have been leaving their dead friends behind. From their viewpoint, I think they might have felt that some explanation was necessary. I think they believed at the time that more expeditions would follow. Perhaps up until the discovery of the corpses, they might have been considering the possibility of colonizing the area. It's possible they wanted to mark this location as a memorial (or warning?) to future Viking explorers.--Rascal3198 22:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Having just read the runestone, my impression is that it is in fact a gravestone. It may be, that the site was chosen because it has soil suitable for digging a mass grave. -- Petri Krohn 22:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

a-/e-dialect

What are the a dialect and e dialect referred to in the text? A google for "e dialect" swedish -"kensington runestone" turns up nothing of relevance. —Felix the Cassowary 09:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that refers to unstressed -a in several words turning to -e or schwa in several dialects. (In that case, it's strange that the page claims most Swedes have an e-dialect, I'd say, Swedish, unlike Danish and Norwegian Bokmål, has retained the -a, just like Icelandic.) Examples from Swedish and Norwegian Bokmål: Swedish kasta, Norwegian kaste (throw), Swedish kalla, Norwegian kalle (call), Swedish jänta, Norwegian jente (girl), Swedish trana, Norwegian trane (Crane bird). 惑乱 分からん 15:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me, I don't think it's a serious linguistic concept, but just something Nielsen invented. The article as it currently stands is very biased towards his theories. If Wakuran's assumption is correct, it's also very strange, as he says, unstressed 'a's are far more common in Sv than in No/Da. --BluePlatypus 22:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Most Scandinavian dialectal traits are rarely defined to one particular language, though, and unstressed e is found in Sweden in at least the traditional dialects of Gotland and Värmland. I think the a- and e- here, still might be mixed up, however. It seems to be a Wikipedia error that has moved on to mirror sites. Allegedly, what I could find out was that the e-dialect is a rare old dialect that was spoken in Bohuslän (and, on the runestone, turned into a pigeon dialect because of the mixed nationalities and spoken varieties of the crew). But it is confusing as as it stands now, and should either be clarified and removed. 惑乱 分からん 13:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon's comment

Transferred anon's comment to the end of the page - Skysmith 08:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This sort of statement:

"The Kensington Runestone could be a stunning prank left by someone with knowledge of obscure medieval runes and intersecting word forms apparently unknown to most professional linguists at the close of the 19th century, or a haunting message left by 14th century Scandinavian explorers in the heart of North America"

setting up a false "either-or" situation, closes off any other possiblities for consideration. It is a favored, albeit unconscious, technique of "fringe historians." Whoever submitted this should, if they ask others to be open-minded, rewrite this confining and restrictive "either-or" dilemma so that it allows for more possibilities than merely "a stunning prank" or "a haunting message."

---

The text

The letter thorn should probably not be transcribed when quoting the rune text, especially if there is some doubt about which sound it represents. Fornadan (t) 22:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that is just a bad excuse from Nielsen, desperately tring to avoid the word "oppdagelse", I wrote a more NPOV explanation in the article explaining the problem. 惑乱 分からん 18:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-catholic bias shrouded

This thing looks like the "Runestone of Turin". The similarities are stunning, some experts would do anything to deny their authenticity in face of overwhelming historical, material and scientific evidence. The controversy is probably because of AVM, the three letters that indicate those original viking explorers were roman catholic, which is very inconvenient for the protestant USA, which denies Mary and the saints. If the stone had runes to say "the pope is responsible for all this misery we got" the stone would be long exhibited and revered alongside the manuscript of Constitution. 195.70.32.136 21:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ehhh, the controversy is linguistic, not religious... 惑乱 分からん 01:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the 19th century, when the runestone was found, USA was in a state of worst anti-catholic hysteria, comparable to the McCarthy-era commie hunt. Obviously the stone was judged in that situation and the refusal stuck. Maybe if JFK survived the stone would be accepted now, but it is still a shame to be a catholic in USA. Imagine newspaper headlines like "Kensington runestone proven authentic - paedophiles founded our great nation". 82.131.210.162 12:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Grab the shovel and the spy satellite!

The runestone is a 911 call, either true or hoax call: someone allege 10 people were murdered by redskins, gives exact location and time. The surviving white men found their 10 comrades and obviously must have buried them properly, because christians do that. Where are the graves, why weren't they searched, found and archeologically excavated? If we found the grave(s), containing 10 nordic warriors scalped ("red with blood") and buried with their arms and armour, the stone would be proven authentic.

This would also serve as proof on the inherent brutality and thus inferiority of the redskin race and justify the concept of manifest destiny in retrospective. This would be a big morale boost for the USA, which still struggles with the issue of having exterminated indian tribes as caucasians expanded to the west during the 19th century.

The entire territory of USA was photoed by commie spy satellites during Cold War (and possibly by own Keyhole satellites and U2 spyplanes). Just as bosnian mass graves were located by NRO telesensing during the yugoslavian civil war, the grave of the 10 norseen should be found from air or space. USA is often ridiculized abroad for having only 200 years past and already bullying. With this, americans could say they have almost 700 years past and be more proud.

It is stupid to analyze the runes to death, when you could go out with a shovel and find the dead! 195.70.32.136 22:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I love the Internet.--TN | ! 07:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This particular IP editor rants like this on talk pages all the time.--Caliga10 02:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is proposal is very sensible. All academic talk about fulthark irregularities goes nowhere, since if original the stone was carved by a time-constrained and seriously emotionally distressed person, who has just lost most comrades. He couldn't care less for grammar. With modern remote sensing and space imaging technology it is definitely possible to find a mass grave of ten people, no matter how long buried. A few sweeps by a Predator drone would possibly nab the site, you don't even need an expensive satellite run. Possibly adding 300 years to U.S. history is no small reward, although to use it against native americans with ulterior racial motives would be a great shame. 82.131.210.162 12:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just one thing, this'd assume that grammar is a difficult thing you always have to think about, but for native speakers, it mostly (though not always) comes natural, no native English speaker would likely mix up singular and plural forms, and use forms such as "we am", "they is" or "he are", even in stressed situations. 惑乱 分からん 18:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you check into Civil War letters you will not infrequently find a "we was" or "they come" in the text (as well as some spectacularly poor spelling). This was at a time where there was at least some schooling and some specific laws of grammar.

The KRS (if authentic) was written at a time of almost no grammatic laws (certainly not among the common classes). The supposed author(s) would also have been voyaging for several years, of mixed dialectic stock (Norrmen and Goths), been influenced by Greenlanders, and perhaps Icelanders as well. If 19th century Americans can mix singular and plural forms, I think we can excuse 14th century Scandinavians for doing the same. Mzalar 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt any human remains could possibly be found. A friend of mine is a gravedigger where the graves are emptied after 50 years unless the lease is renewed (anything found is stored in labeled boxes in a single crypt). Apart from jewelry and metal from the coffins I have never seen more than a few small parts of bones retrieved and most graves have no remains left at all. It takes very special conditions to preserve remains after so long. Wayne 05:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Some vs. Most

It seems that many people are opposed to the statement "...but some scholars and historians dismiss it as a prank or hoax." and would rather it read "...but most scholars and historians dismiss it as a prank or hoax." Unless you can verify that a significant majority of scholars and historians "dismiss it" and do verify it in the article, please do not edit this statement. The rest of the article supports a discussion with scholars more equally distributed between real and fake. Farmboyjad 02:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I would in fact argue, that most scholars do not take a definite stance on this issue. -- Petri Krohn 05:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say that most linguists who have studied and writen about the issue consider it a hoax, on the other hand most geologists who have studied the stone believe it to be authentic. Personally I prefer the term "many" when talking about scholars opposed to the stone. Mzalar 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There is in fact no doubt that the stone is a genuine stone. Stones are plentiful, and forging one would be meaningless. However, very few non amateurs doubt that the inscription on the stone is a fake. Jon kare 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "...but its authenticity is strongly debated among scholars and historians."? Farmboyjad 03:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Scholars and historians are pretty unanimous. Enthusiasts are a different matter. Jon kare 18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I guess I've gotten a biased viewpoint since I live thirty miles from where is was discovered. I still believe it's authentic, but I'm apparently in the minority, and Wikipedia is supposed to be objective. Anyway, the article's current phrasing about inconclusiveness takes the focus off the amount of debate and renders this whole discussion moot.Farmboyjad 22:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How about

In general, Scandinavian linguists and runologists are overwhelmingly against accepting the genuineness of the Stone... Few scholars in other disciplines have challenged their ruling.

This is from one of this article's pro-authenticity references, the pdf file at American Linguists Keith and Kevin Massey's site. Explicit admission from prominent authenticity advocates that most authorities consider it a fake.

THE RUNESTONE IS TRUE!

I totally belive in the Runestone. I researched all about it and even went to the museum where it is put. How could some farmer write all that,which by the way is all historicly correct, and then burry it tangled in a tree's roots?

I think the Kensington Runestone is true! I went to the museum all about it. (The Museum is in Alexandria, MN) And, the writings are historicaly correct, and it was found tangled in a tree's roots. Coinsidence, I think not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindman9 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 26 March 2007

Length of Inscription

There are just so many peculiarities with this inscription. A few unusual features are acceptable; many authentic runic inscriptions have their own uniques features. The KRS, however, has so many unusual and unique features as to make it a herculean effort to remove serious doubts about its authenticity. One noteworthy feature of the inscription, rarely if ever mentioned or discussed, is its unusual length. This is the longest runic inscription in stone extant. Runic inscriptions are brief jottings, e.g., "Thorvald made this in Freyda's honor on Midsummer Day," that sort of thing. The KRS reads like a piece of literature, a narrative, a story complete with characters, implied chronology, sequential events, motives, consequences, actions, etc. Fourteenth century Norse simply did not carve memorials of such prodigious length. The context may be Norse, i.e., carved runes in stone, but the content, i.e., lengthy journalistic prose, is not medieval. I think it is called "missing the forest for the trees." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.181.22 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 7 April 2007

Most runes were prehistoric, this one claims to be medieval. 14th century Norse had already produced this and this. They were not illiterate. -- Petri Krohn 04:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the length of the composition of the runestone is better understood if you consider it a runic inscription rather than a runestone. That way it doesn't have to match up with traditional runestones. Presumably (if authentic) the reason for the inscription was to leave a brief tale of what happened rather than as a simple memorial/boundary marker/inheritance claim that most runestones were. The simple fact is that runes are easier to inscribe in stone, and so be left for posterity, than roman lettering is.

I would suggest that the length of the inscription actually works in favor of authenticity. A person attempting a hoax is unlikely to leave something as long and complex as the Kensington Runestone. For one thing its hard work. For another, if trying to decieve an expert, shorter is better - there is less chance of making a critical mistake. A simple "Eric was here" message would have been more than adaquite for most purposes. Of course a hoaxer could have created a longer inscription, we have no idea why any particular person does something, but it seems more logical for a hoaxer to have delivered a shorter message on the stone.

Likewise the errors can be a double edged sword. For instance, there were books availible to the common reader that included a standard set of medieval runes. It seems odd that a hoaxer, having this material, would use such an odd set of runes. It would be more understandable for a 14th century wanderer, unschooled and without a reference, to come up with unique runes when he ran into a lapse in his memory.

It is all a subjective line of inquiry, though. Much depends on what the inscriber knew (either 14th or 19th century), and that we cannot with any authority determine Mzalar 02:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Poor conclusion.

“These advocates tend to be enthusiastic but may lack professional credentials. Interested professional archaeologists, historians and Scandinavian linguists tend to question the stone’s provenance.”

I find the above statement misleading and disingenuous on the part of the author. It paints those believing the rune stone is authentic as mere foolish hobbyists while all the hoary professors agree the origins of the stone are dubious at best. Apparently, this is not the case at all.

I do not doubt the majority of linguistic, archaeological and historical experts have serious problems with a truly Nordic rune stone in Minnesota. And I have no doubt that the majority of experts interested in rune stones are members of the above groups. But geologists are experts too and their science is a bit more … scientific than the rest (I say this as a titled historian and scientist).

According to the article: Winchell dated the inscription on the stone to roughly 500 years. Wolter’s preliminary findings (where’s the rest?) found the etched stone to be buried from 50 to 200 years.

So while there may be linguistic discrepancies, I am convinced that the stone is authentic or was indeed a prank played by pre-Columbus Native Amercians attempting to mimic a culture they apparently never met. Let it be known, for the sake of transparency, that I am relying the accuracy of Wikipedia for these facts and have never studied rune stones professionally.

Also, someone said, “There is in fact no doubt that the stone is a genuine stone. Stones are plentiful, and forging one would be meaningless. However, very few non amateurs doubt that the inscription on the stone is a fake.”

This too is either patently disingenuous or the words of a fool. Either way this type of blatant or un-intended sophistry should not be used to advance one belief or the other. Ryanpm4545 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

contemporary danish is wrong

The article says about the "journey of discovery":

In the contemporary and modern Scandinavian languages it is called oppdagelsesferd in Danish

No its not ;) Im danish and have never heard that word. Its called an "Opdagelsesrejse", so the arguments in the article is solid, but the word should be changed. Being new to wiki editing I didn´t change it, but someone should.

added by "Using Blanks"

217.157.166.105 10:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Could be a mixture of different modern Scandinavian words. It's called "upptäcktsfärd" or "upptäcktsresa" in Swedish. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 13:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A warning about this article about an hoax -needs major cleanup

It should be noted this article has been used in Norwegian press as an example of how bad Wikipedia may be. In this article [1] several Norwegian scholars say a lot nice about Wikipedia, but they also argue it is vulnerable to POV-attacks from groups with strong interests. They mention the problems with the articles about the Armenian genocide, and this very article here. They establish this stone was an obvious hoax and prank to the scholars getting knowledge about it within the first year of it's finding, like Sophus Bugge. The section "Historieforvrengning" (meaning distortion of History or something) is, roughly translated. "almost from the start, the supporters of the Kensington-stone has been active on Wikipedia and affected the entry about this artifact. They mention Olaf Rygh and Sophus Bugge rejected the stone in 1899, but stresses this was based on a transcript with 33 errors. The implication is they was wrong due to the errors in the material sent to them. But the errors in the transcript were minimal and made no effect on their rejection. " (end of quote). They stresses the usage of an incorrect Runic alphabet. They also mention (as other Scandinavians has mentioned on this talk page, and we should - it's ridiculous like hell) how modern the language on the stone is. In short, there is no doubt this is a hoax- we (at lest newpage patrollers) see tons of them on Wikipedia every day, and it is sad to see this article makes it look like there is even a single doubt about this issue. Even if the stone has it fanatic supporters, there is no need to provide balance when all the "serious" people are on the one side- and this is an issue coming up on Wikipedia from time to time. There is no need for "have been disputed" and so on, this article should read hoax. Greswik 18:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I was quite baffled when I just read this article. The article should mention the fact that some people believe in the stone, and give their arguments by all means, but it should also state clearly that the academic community is practically unanimous in declaring the stone a hoax.--Barend 23:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the prejudicial statements about only enthusiasts believing in the authenticity of the inscription and all academics are opposed to it. These statements have been given no foundation, and do not pass the test of being verifiable. While it can be noted that those academics who support the authenticity are in the minority, among those who have actually studied the runestone, there are many who believe in its authenticity. If you wish to pursue this matter, I would like to suggest that you limit your arguments to those who can be shown to have made a study of the matter, such as by publishing books or papers on the subject, and not resort to a "common knowledge" argument. For instance Bugge, whom you mention, did not publish on the subject and it is difficult to know how much time and study he put into it. He may have given it the necessary examination to make a reasoned decision on its authenticity, or he may have simply dismissed it out of hand. It is difficult to tell. In my research on the runestone, I have found the majority of geolgists who have written on the subject believe the stone to be authentic, and none who outright believe it to be a hoax. In other words, the preponderance of academics (not enthusiats) in this field support the authenticity of the inscription. It all depends on who you talk to.

You certainly have the right to make your arguments, but the arguments must be factual and verifiable, and not of the everyone knows that variety. 24.118.95.228 00:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A quote from a respected runologist about what the consensus among runologists is, should pass as a reference.--Barend 16:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have changed "scholars" to "runologists", as you state that is the actual subject of your quote and added a statement about the opinion of geologists who have studied the stone. Can this be considered a reasonable compromise?

Please note that I do not believe that opinion of Knirk should be stated as fact but should rather be quoted as the opinion of Knirk (and also the statement quoted does not suggest the consensus of runologists), but am willing to let this pass in order to avoid a continual battle over the subject. Mzalar 20:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt this stone is not considered authentic by the scholars. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. If you think the scholars are wrong, please do not use Wikipedia as your battleground. Greswik 21:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Undid edit. I presented a factual statement, that geologists have claimed the Inscription is too old to be a forgery. Geologists are scholars. I have discussed the matter with several geologists from the Univesity of Minnestota - Duluth, Macalester College, and the University of Minnesota who have told me that Scott Wolter has a valid argument. This argument has not yet been challanged by any scholar so far as I know. The statement that scholars (suggesting all scholars) state that the inscription is a hoax is simply incorrect, despite your repeated attempts to force the issue. Wikipedia should be a place for the expression of fact, not personal opinion. Let me ask this question, have you studied the geological evidence regarding the stone? Have you noted the publishedy opinions from any geologist who believes the stone is a hoax? If you wish to speak for the runologists, fine, but dont force words into the mouths of other scholars unless you have done the research. I stand by my statement, and further suggest that it is more in line with the stadards of Wikipedia than some of the prejudicial and unsupported statements that have been posted.

This is the basic problem of trying to deal the Kensington Runestone. It is the inability of some to understand that there is sound evidence from legitimate scholars (particularly in the physical sciences, but there have been philologists who have also written in positively about the stone (such as S N Hagen, and William Thalbitzer) supporting the authenticity of the inscription. Yes, there are kooks out there, but there are arguments by scholars that need to be addressed, not dismissed as if they weren't there. That attitude is a "soapbox" attitude not a scholarly one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzalar (talk • contribs) 06:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Henrik Williams is one such scholar that has actually engaged in honest debate on the Kensington Runestone. He has addmited that Richard Nielsen has made a number of valid linguistic points regarding the inscription, to the point where he admits that there is no single impossibility in the language for the 14th century. He still believes the inscription to be of modern origon due to the number of exceptions that need to be made for the stone to be authentic, and I fully respect his opinion in this matter, because it is based on a thorough examination of both sides of the issue (though I disagree with him, because he does not take into account the physical aspects of the stone). - - I can name a number of current published scholars who are opposed to the authenticity of the runestone - Williams, Knirk, Fitzhugh, Wallace; but I can also name a number of scholars who support the stone - Alice Kehoe, Barry Hanson, Wolter, Nielsen. To suggest those scholars are mere "enthusiasts" is a logical falicy known as "poisoning the well" and I should think be unacceptable to Wikipedia standards Mzalar 07:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have rephrased the opening paragraph. I think it now nicely summarizes the main problem: philologists do not believe in its authenticity, geologists do.--Barend 14:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, this stone is not in the history-books. And thats what an encyclopedia should tell. This means, it's ok to have a section in this article talking about some people believe in it, but it's still not good enough to let it look like it's something to discuss. There are people believing the Armenian Genoice didn't happen either, the article about the Armenian Genoice should still read it did. Greswik 16:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Barend, this seems quite fair. Greswik, Encyclopedias do cover the Kensington Runestone. One of the nice things about Wikipedia, is that it is not biased toward the particular of a single person, but can contain various viewpoints pointing out the pros and cons of arguments in depth which most encyclopedias cannot do. Also Wikipedia provides a discussion page which alows a glimpse into the arguments behind the arguments, which can be much more valuable. This allows the individual to make up his own mind about the subject, based on factual and verifiable evidence and not mere opinion (no matter how wide that opinion may be held). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzalar (talk • contribs) 17:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

history section

I changed the Early History section to history since the section really covers its re-discovery by the farmer. My impression is that early history would be a discussion about how it was made and how it came to the site of re-discovery.

I also added the name of the museum that it's currently on display. I thought that readers might be interested. Mrs.EasterBunny 22:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

introduction

I don't want to create controversy. However, I changed the intro sentence to include why the thing is important. It's important because it suggests that early explorers may have visited the area. It's not important because it's just a slab with writing. So, I included the punch line into the 1st sentence. Mrs.EasterBunny 23:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohman hoax paradigm (etc.)

I'm going to revert Barend's undoings of a couple of my recent contributions. Although I am almost completely certain that the Kensington Runestone is a 19th century hoax, as far as I am aware the only evidence that it was perpetrated in 1898 by farmer Ohman is the claim made by Walter Gran about what his father had told him in the 1920s. Beyond that, you're left only with the fact that Ohman came from the right part of the world, and had an interest in the culture of his ancestors. Against the Ohman-as-hoaxer theory, as Michael Zalar and others have long argued, is the involvement of his son as a witness to the finding- specifically to the way the tree roots were wrapped around the stone. If the Ohmans had received significant financial reward, there might have been reason for the father to persuade his son to give detailed and false answers to direct and serious questions, but (unlike, for example, the mendacious dealer who sold America the Vinland Map) they certainly didn't suddenly become rich. Therefore, without evidence to the contrary, Edward Ohman's evidence that the stone was closely wrapped around by tree roots should be presumed to be essentially true, and must be taken into account when attempting to identify the origins of the stone; hence "the stone was never near the roots" is by no means "the most likely explanation". It may still be the correct explanation, but it does not fit any evidence we currently possess.

As for my other reversion, given that geological examinations have provided the strongest evidence for a pre-19th-century origin for the carvings on the stone, I feel it is important, when summarising the current state of knowledge about the stone, to indicate potentially significant lines of investigation which have not been pursued. A very typical feature of these "mysteries of history" controversies is that the debate is kept within narrow limits, so it is useful for an encyclopedia to indicate the limitations of current knowledge. David Trochos 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added another reference concerning tree roots. I can not agree with the inclusion of the "no geological evidence for a hoax"-argument. The burden of proof does not lie on the skeptics here. That sentence was highly speculative and argumentative, and I removed it again. As for the history section, the only thing it says about Ivar Bardarson is that he was in Greenland, and this is not controversial. There was contact with Greenland at this time, but it's a long way from Greenland to Minnesota. --Barend 14:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll get back to the tree roots later (if Michael Zalar doesn't beat me to it)- and I'm not happy about the use of the term "burden of proof" in relation to the compilation of an encyclopedia article. As for Bardarson (and Rafn)- I've rewritten that whole section so it's easier to see what I was getting at. David Trochos 01:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I finally got back to the tree roots! David Trochos (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Historical evidence

I question the value of the information which is currently in the paragraph "Historical evidence". All it seems to talk about is contacts with Greenland, which at this point is not particularly noteworthy. People in the Nordic countries knew about Vinland at this time, that is not controversial, but it does nothing to support the theory that anyone has travelled on from Greenland and Vinland to Minnesota. Look at the map. It's a long way. This paragraph just doesn't seem to have anything to do with the topic of the article. --Barend 17:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In a sense that's very true. So what is the historical evidence to back up claims for the authenticity of the Kensington Runestone? Is it anything more than misinterpretation of the information referred to in this paragraph, and related stuff like the Inventio Fortunata, which is specifically stated by Cnoyen to be a description of regions much further north than Minnesota? (Sorry, I'm away for Bonfire Night today: David Trochos; 3 Nov 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.144.148 (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, don't think there is anything else, at least I've never seen anything else.--Barend 00:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I have. It's another dead end, but I've put it in anyway, faute de mieux. David Trochos 20:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Another dead end, quite, and I can't see that it merits inclusion in the article. I will try another total re-write of the historical evidence-section later, emphasizing historical evidence, rather than speculation. I don't have the time right now, though.--Barend 11:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha- I wish you luck. AFAIK, there is no firm historical evidence about the creation of the Kensington Runestone in any time-frame, which rather lies at the heart of the problem. I'd be cautious about removing what's in that section at the moment- slender though it is, it's the only documented historical background which could fit a 1362 creation-date for the stone, and as I tried to suggest in the paragraph, that information (as interpreted by "Viking America" enthusiasts like Rafn) would have been available to a 19th-century forger, and may be significant. As an interim measure, I'm changing the section heading; meanwhile, does anybody have access to a copy of "Antiquitates Americanae"? David Trochos 00:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well - that is exactly my point. The article, as it stands now, seems to suggest that there is a plausible historical background for the stone. The scholarly consensus is that, basically, there is no plausible context for it. That's what the "historical evidence" section should show. --Barend 14:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope the change of section title has helped a bit in that respect- also, the last paragraph of the section does emphasise how flimsy the chain of reasoning proposed by KRS-believers is from a historian's viewpoint. PS, thanks for correcting my geographical goof- the West coast (of England) is where I live, with lovely views across the Solway Firth. David Trochos 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there should be a couple of historical points noted regarding the time period in which the Kensington Stone was purportedly carved. 1) The Inventio Fortunate was a document that exsisted in Renaissance times and which described a voyage beyond Greenland circa 1360 (please see the section in The Vinaland Map and the Tartar Relation for more on the Inventio) 2) Cnoyen published a similar document, the Itinerum, which also covered this trip, and gave a return date of 1364 for the travellers. It was possibly based on the Inventio, or may have been based on talks with one of the travellers (see EGR Taylor's discussion of this in Imago Mundi vol 13). Our knowledge of this document comes from a letter from Mercator to Dee not published until the 1950s. Cnoyen however mixes his facts of the trip with another document the Geste Arthur (IIRC), which makes interpetation difficult (as well as some parts being sumarized by Mercator). 3) 16th Century maps - a large number of 16th century maps reference the Inventio Fortunate or Cnoyen as well as the period circa 1360 in relation to an exploration beyond the Greenland settlements. These maps are flawed in regards to the north pole (I believe the description from Cnoyen of 4 indrawing seas relates to the 3 currents entering Baffin Bay and a 4th current in the Hudson Straight, but there is nothing published to this end - James Enterline in Erikson Eskimos and Columbus suggests an area NW of Baffin Island). 4) The above seems to be a solid indication that there was a voyage beyond the Greenland settlements at the time of the purported inscription. To the best of my knowledge, there are no other reports of such voyages since the L'Anse aux Meadows expeditions. Hence there is a limited chance of a hoaxer by luck picking a date that corresponds to an actual voyage. 5) Also to the best of my knowledge the maps mentioned in point 3 would have been the only souce of information about the voyage in the 19th century (there seems to be no notation of this in any Kensington Runestone material until after the Mercator/Dee letter was published). This would appear to limit the amount of people who would be able to date the Runestone based on known information (a cartographic historian might know, whereas a person with a basic book learning of history would not). 6) While there is no direct connection between Hudson Bay and the Cnoyen/Inventio voyage, maps dating to over a century before Hudson explored the Bay that bears his name (possibly as early as the mid-15th century per Enterline), do reveal the Bay. Most of these maps do appear to be connected to Inventio/Cnoyen maps, though I dont think a complete analysis has been done on this point. 7. I dont have my sources availible at the moment, but Kristin Seaver (not a proponent of the Kensington Stone) made a connection between a descriptive spot in the Mercator letter and a point on southern Baffin Island. Although it does not give specifics, the Cnoyen report does say the expedition went west at this point, which, if true, must have put it into the Hudson Strait.

The main point of the above is to show that at the date given on the Kensington Runestone, there is sound evidence from several sources of an expedition which had the potential of reaching as far as the runestone site. If the dates did not sync up, the liklihood of the Kensington Runestone being authentic would appear to be far less. (Similarly an anchor bearing a date of 1470 found on San Salvador would be considered far less likely to be authentic than one bearing 1492). Further, but less importantly, there does appear to be some reasonable evidence from which we can infer that the above journey travelled at least as far as Hudson Bay. Finally, this information was not commonly availible in the 19th century, and to the best of my knowledge not availible in any Scandinavian history book of the period. For the Kensington Runestone to be a forgery, it appears that the hoaxer would have had to cultivate an exceptional source in order to find a suitable date to put on the stone. Mzalar (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of incorrect information in there Michael. See the article Inventio Fortunata for the beginnings of an attempt to disentangle the text from its over-enthusiastic interpretation, but just for starters- anybody who could get hold of a copy of Hakluyt's "Navigations" (one of the all-time classics about the Age of Discovery, probably never out-of-print) had all the information about the Inventio and Cnoyen that they needed to choose 1362 as the date for a fake runestone. David Trochos (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. I had been basing my assumption on the fact that none of the investigators seem to have discovered the information until after the publication of the Mercator/Dee letter. Holand in particular did considerable research into the historical sources and was unable to come up with this voyage. Regardless there were sources availible, though I still contend that they were not easy sources to find (such as a well published history or encyclopedia).

I did 3 searches on Google Books for "inventio AND fortunate" "Inventio AND fortunata" and "Cnoyen" in books published between 1700 and 1900. I was able to find about 21 references to the voyage (there were a couple more which were just bibliographic listings). Of these eleven gave dates for the travel of 1360 or 1364, four gave a date of 1330, two dated it to 1354 or 1355, and four gave no date at all. Two books were (apparently) in Danish, one in Icelandic, one in German, one in Spanish, and the remainder in English. The vast majority of the references were brief, a page or less, with the notable exception of a pamphlet of 36 pages by DeCosta entirely on the Inventio (this pamphlet was not in the book search, but several references were made to it) published in 1881.

In every instance the voyage is connected to Nicholas of Lynn, an Englishman. Only in some few instances are Scandinavian countries mentioned, and then generally as the location where Cnoyen recieved his information ("he learned of a certaine priest in the king of Norwayes court, in the yeere 1364" -Hakluyt).

Perhaps a better conclusion would be that there was (to the best of my knowldege) no 19th century information of a Swedish or Scandinavian journey in 1362. It was not until the publication of the Mercator/Dee letter in the 1950s that there is a direct connection made to a Scandinavian expedition. Indeed, Taylor suggests the 1354 Paul Knutsson expedition mentioned in much of the Kensington Runestone literature as a likely source for this travel.

Regardless, a 19th century hoaxer apparently would have had to have taken what appeared to have been (according to most if not all of the literature of the time) and morphed it into a Swedish expedition for the purposes of carving the inscription. While this is certainly not impossible, it does not seem to me to be a particularly rational choice, but this must be for each person to judge. Mzalar (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As you point out, Hakluyt links the story to Norway 1364. However, looking back over newsgroup postings I see that when the Stone was exhibited in Sweden in 2004, C.C. Rafn's "Americas Opdagelse af Skandinaverne" was suggested as a possible information source (but no explanation as to why). David Trochos (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he Hakluyt links the story to Norway in 1364 in terms of where his source (where Cnoyen got the tale). The Voyage is linked to Nicholas of Lynn, and gives the origin and return of the voyage to England. Regarding Rafn, I found an online copy of Americas Opdagelse, and though I could not read it (it was in Swedish), there was no reference to the 1360s or Cnoyen or Knutson. He does mention the 1347 Markland voyage which was blown off course on its return to Greenland and ended up in Iceland, as does Beamish in "The Discovery of America by the Northmen..." which borrows heavily from Rafn (but again shows no 1360 voyage). Perhaps the connection to Rafn is based on Rafn's use of Dighton Rock and the Newport Tower as evidence toward a Viking presence. Mzalar (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How on earth did I miss Americas Opdagelse on Google Books? Thanks Michael; I'm fully in agreement with you in this case- that booklet has no obvious relevance to the 1360s; the nearest thing seems to be the Markland voyage in 1347. Rafn definitely did publish the text of Ivar Bardarson's report on Greenland though. Again, I haven't found "Antiquitates Americanae" (and its supplements) or "Gronlands Historiske Mindesmaerker" online, but I guess if he makes any mention of the Knutsson letter it will be in one of those two. Tantalising... David Trochos (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

PS- Checking the text as given in the Diplomatarium Norvegicum I see that the Knutsson letter did indeed appear in Volume 3 of "Grønlands Historiske Mindesmærker" (1845), and was subsequently used in Volume 2 of "Det Norske Folks Historie" by P.A.Munch (1857)- unfortunately, only part of this thousand-page-plus volume seems to be available on Google Books. David Trochos (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)