Talk:Kensington Runestone/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

recent analysis

I just heard that the carving on the stone were analyzed and proven to be carved in the 14th century. I heard this on the History Channel, does this page need to be updated? --Az81964444 (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We'd have aliens doing various things if we relied on the History Channel, a very unreliable source. There have been a number of similar claims, none of which have been accepted by the professional archaeological and linguistic communities. This one also involves if it's the one I'm thinking of Templars in America. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
You dismiss the info from the History Channel without any basis. In your "opinion," the info is simply unreliable because it was presented on the History Channel. Your dogmatic approach to openness and fairness are just as archaic as the stone itself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.48.6.139 (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
But the argument they present is valid! I don't get why you guys dismiss it so quickly. I suppose you think its outrageous and incredulous. Even with all their research presented for the other side of the argument, (it seeming pretty damn valid to me) I have no hidden agenda or motive. I'm just wanting people to know the truth. Olaf may have not forged these runes like some "runeologists" and "linguists" think. Their basis is all based around the hooked X, but when you look deep enough you find that the hooked X links back to the Freemasons through Prince Henry Sinclair, which ultimately links back to Rosslyn Chapel. Its not that outrageous. If it were 'untrue' why the hell would so many things add up? Wiki bully grow up and give people a chance to present both sides of the argument and look at it validly rather than so quickly dismiss it. You get so used to how textbooks present history to you that it becomes a comfortable place, when someone comes along with something different it makes you uncomfortable. Why? The native americans even have legends of knights coming over. They shared very simular flags. There are also other runes and relics that were millllllllles apart that were written with the same language. The linguistic experts in question simply want to dismiss all the evidence when put on the table. They want to make people that question the system seem like idiots. Its simply not the case. We haven't concocted this out of thin air. The runes have been analysed and shown to be dated to around 1400's. Its not just history channel man. Do your research, all of you. I have no hidden agenda here. I'm not even of scandanavian blood like this one source claims everyone involved thats trying to prove it has hidden agendas. I don't care. I just want both sides of the argument to be properly presented, instead of it being UNENCYCLOPEDIC and leading the reader to an OPINION BASED, BIASED CONCLUSION.

I'm still looking for a citation to any refutation of Wolter's key finding: that the carving was made before any settlers arrived. Absent any refutation, Wolter's finding on that single point (nevermind the linguists and Templars) stands as the best evidence on when it was carved. The failure of this article as it stands is striking and obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiloh68 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As hinted elsewhere, no such refutation is likely to appear in the foreseeable future, because nobody has an economic interest in proving the stone to be a forgery (also, the necessary testing would almost certainly damage the carved part of the stone). The problem remains, however, that mica degradation is not an ideal test for age, particularly when considering a possible fake, and it is most regrettable that other, more sophisticated tests could not have been carried out. David Trochos (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It is regrettable but the Wolter analysis is still the best evidence. It is pure speculation to think other studies would not corroborate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiloh68 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wolter analysis is indeed the best (effectively the only) geological evidence, but because of its methodological weakness, it cannot be allowed to trump evidence from other disciplines. Wolter's later studies of the Runestone and other artefacts have not encouraged confidence in his work. David Trochos (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
You mean it cannot be allowed by "you" to challenge your dogma. If the Kensington Runestone is a hoax then so was the moon landing. The evidence of hoax is zero in both cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiloh68 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
More precisely, the evidence suggests that the Kensingtonn Runestone was carved significantly before 1898, but significantly after 1362! David Trochos (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I assume that you are basing this conclusion on Wolter's work. Please explain how his findings imply that the carving was done significantly after 1362.--Gthompsen (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
No, that's the point- I am basing that conclusion on ALL the evidence. Wolter's work says the stone must have been carved a significant time before 1898, BUT the runes and language pretty much have to date from a significant time after 1362 (not necessarily from the 19th century, but almost certainly 16th century or later). David Trochos (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I would not want to make the argument the the the stone was carved between 1500 and 1700. I doubt I would convince anyone. Henrik Williams and Richard Nielsen wrote a joint paper after the Stockholm exhibit of the KRS. They concluded "the language of the KRS is generally consistent with both the 1300s and the 1800s. One cannot absolutely exclude either one of the other century. ... Each person must reach his own conclusion as to where the boundry of probability lies." This seems to say that any language-based argument that would attempt to rule out either century could be considered dubious. Wolter's analysis, if correct, rules out the 1800s. But you regard his work as "methodologically weak." He has heard no such claims from his peers. You believe, however, that his evidence must not trump other disciplines. Williams and Nielsen brought up probability, and how we each must reach our own conclusions. I am curious. Based on Wolter's work alone, what would you say is the probability that the carving was done in the 1800s? Based on the language evidence alone, what would you say is the probability that the carving was done in the 1300s? Gthompsen (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Nielsen and Williams' paper was written just before the Larsen papers came to light and showed that the Kensington runes were secretly known in the 19th century, and could be interpreted with 19th century sound values. They are still apparently working together, so their next joint report may be very interesting. Based on Wolter's work alone, it seems highly unlikely that the Runestone was carved in the 1800s (but only seems, as I have indicated elsewhere). Based on the language evidence, particularly the umlauted runes, it seems highly unlikely that the runestone was carved before the 1500s (but only seems, as Nielsen has indicated elsewhere). Applying Ockham's Razor to the Larsen papers, I still incline to a later date rather than earlier, but I'm quite prepared to be surprised by evidence that there realy was a Templar conspiracy... David Trochos (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Transcription

I went through the text, using images available at the ohio-state site hosted by J. Huston McCulloch. There seems to be at least nine obvious errors in the transcription.

This is the way I read the text:


Changes
  1. On line 1, replaced paa with po.
  2. On line 2, opþagelsefarþ is one word.
  3. On line 4, Replaced "yl" wilt "l". (update, 19 December 2008)
  4. On line 5, added missing word rise. (modern: resa, travel)
  5. On line 5, replaced the word norder with norr.
  6. On line 6, added to missing letter h to the word þagh.
  7. On line 7, presented the pentimal system ten as 10.
  8. On line 7, replaced O with Ö. (This seems to be the same anomal sign as in the word göter.)
  9. On line 8, replaced the letter D with þ in the word þeþ.
  10. On line 9, removed the letter m from the word illu.
  11. On line 9, added letter e to word fräelse. (update 2, 19 December 2008)

In addition to the errors above, I made the following general corrections

  1. Replaced all occurrences of "th" with þ (thorn), as in original.
  2. Replaced use of W with V.
  3. Replaced whitespaces with colon (:), as in original.
  4. Removed capitalization; this is not present in original.
  5. Split text to lines according to original

This is suposed to be Old Swedish. I can see no justification for using the English W; in Swedish the /w/ sound is spelled with the letter V. The old text in fact seems to have an extra layer of transliteration from Swedish to English alphabets. This is the only reason I can see for presenting the Swedish word på (spelled po on the stone) as paa.

What is the source for the text used in the article? It sould be clearly referenced in-line. If no one will provide a reference for the faulty text now used in the article, I will replace the transcription with the one above. -- Petri Krohn 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with you. It seems this article is heavily based on Richard Nielsen's research, which I personally would think is too biased to present here without criticism. (Right now, it seems rather the criticism is criticized). 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 10:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Update, 19 December 2008. I looking at the image yesterday, I noted that I had missed one error in the transcription. The second-to-last word on line 4 has only five runes, the transcription gives six. I am replacing "yl" wilt "l". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Update 2, same day. I found a reliable source for a transcripions. It is in the journal HISTORISKA NYHETER - SPECIAL published by the Swedish Historiska museet in connection of the exhibition of the stone in Stockholm in 2003. The PDF document is no longer available at the museum site, but can be found in archive.org and here: http://www.kensingtonrunestone.com/HN_kensington.pdf. The unsigned artile names Henrik Williams, professor at the dept for Scandinavian Languages at the University of Uppsala, and Richard Nielsen as the source. This is what I get if I copy-paste from the PDF file:


I find the transcription almost identical to my own corrected reading above. I think we can consider this the canonical version. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lateral text

The lateral text: 

har:10:mans:we:hawet:at:se:
äptir:wore:skip:14:þagh:rise:
from:þeno:öh:ahr:1362:

Has been translated to: 

(I) have 10 men at the inland sea 
to look after our ship 14 days travel
from this wealth/property. Year [of our Lord] 1362

The word öh (third from the end) should be read as "island", modern Swedish: ö, not "wealth/property". The ground were it was found is claimed to have been an island by some e.g..

Rather strange: One of the finders' name is "Öhman" = "man from an island". St.Trond (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I did put in a note above that translation a while back, explaining that it was based on Nielsen's interpretation and included "variant readings" (a more conventional translation being seen in the infobox at top of the article). However, I do feel the article is still unclear. David Trochos (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Transcription by Historiska museet

The source above (Historiska museet) gives this transcription for the text:

The source also discusses if the second letter should be read as Ä instead of A. (This is before the publication of the Larson runes.) It proposes that the first letter H is some kind of medieval spiritus asper (my words) that appeared in many medieval texts as an initial H. With this reading, they undestand the first word to be är, swedish for are, translating to (There) are 10 men by the sea... -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole translation is here: (The English translation is mine, based on the Swedish.)

  • Swedish: (Det) är tio man vid havet för att se efter våra skepp fjorton dag(ars) resa från denna ö. År 1362.
  • English: (There) are 10 men by the sea to look after our ship 14 days travel from this island. Year 1362

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Geologists

On the other hand, a very few geologists have argued that the inscription is hundreds of years old. To say "very few" implies that the stone has been examined by a great many geologists who have found the inscription to be recent. If this is the case, then the article should reflect this, or at least change "very few" to "few".--RLent (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, so I'll attempt an alternative version. As it happens, the opinion of geologists, as geologists, may not be much help. AFAIK the Kensington Runestone has never been studied by a geologist specialising in detection of antiquities forgery (of which I believe there are one or two around, attempting to cope with the flood of unprovenanced sculptures, inscribed tablets, pots etc. coming onto the market these days). David Trochos (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that Wolter's research is faulty? That his use of the mica weathering was a mistake? Would a geologist with the particular specialty you describe find fault with that method, I wonder?
Given that mica weathering can be accelerated in various ways, some more subtle than others- and that the glitter of recently-carved mica would have been an instant giveaway back in 1898 if the stone had been faked, so a faker would have had to get rid of it somehow- it would be preferable to find some additional evidence. David Trochos (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The evidence of mica degradation can only be seen under a high power (500x) microscope. From the best I can ascertain, the spade-like biotite (mica) crystals are typically about 30 micrometers across. This is an instant give-away? Do you think the carver knew all about how trace minerals weather off the surface of a rock? Gthompsen (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You comment earlier that no one will likely attempt to refute Wolter's work because there is no economic incentive to do so. You also seem to require someone expert in two disciplines, geology and antiquities forgery, before you will listen. Do you think such a person will have an economic incentive, too? The strategy seems to be: If evidence comes in that you do not like, merely set the bar higher. Gthompsen (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It depends what you mean by "two disciplines". The study of forgery of stone antiquities is a discipline in itself; it happens to require knowledge of geology, antiquities, and faking techniques, but many branches of the study of antiquities require a scientific background. So, such experts exist, and will happily do the work if paid a fee appropriate to their specialised skills. If the Runestone were offered for sale, a potential purchaser would have an economic incentive to pay that fee, but no such sale is going to happen. As for the mica degradation, try taking a look at a freshly chiselled piece of biotite-rich rock. There are a heck of a lot of those tiny crystals, and they twinkle. Even if the hypothetical hoaxer had no technical knowledge of weathering, it would have been very clear that something had to be done. David Trochos (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
So when the carver dressed the stone, the entire split side would be teeming with twinkling biotite crystals. Do you think the carver would know this is due to biotite? Wouldn't he just think that this is what a freshly exposed rock surface looks like? If he thought the surface to be too shiny, how would he "dirty it up?" Do you know of any methods that he may have used that would remove the biotite, leaving the surface as it looks today? Gthompsen (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The carver would not have to know anything about biotite- merely that the "new" sides of the Runestone looked very different from the uncarved ones. I know one weathering method, freeze-thaw cycling (accelerated by salt) which would not be beyond the understanding of somebody who had lived in a northern coastal area (as in Norway) and would work well in 19th century Minnesota winter conditions. David Trochos (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How long did it take to carve?

A fundamental question about the Kensington runestone is this: How long did it take to carve? If you were part of the remnant of a party, the main body of which had just been massacred, would you take time to create this artifact? Taking at face value the stone's own testimony concerning the circumstances giving rise to its creation, even if you had the tools and the skills to do make it, why would you? The noise of stone chipping might attract another raiding party, and the time required would obligate you either (i) to stay in one place until the job was done (in which case you would be a sitting duck) or (ii) continually return to the location of the stone until the job was done (in which case you would be easy to ambush). It would be more authentic for the message to be carved in a wooden timber, and that would be durable enough to satisfy the need to leave a message behind (though it would have rotted before the 19th century). It also seems likely that a different message would be more believable. Not only is the message extremely long under the emergency circumstances described in the message, but it does not include any names. Wouldn't you expect such a message to includes the names of the survivors as well as the victims? Surely, anyone wandering around Minnesota during the 14th century who was capable of reading the message would have had some connection to the ill-fated party. Finally, why is there no information about the location where the creator of the rock expects to meet up with a potential rescuer? Surely, this would have been important information to include. Wouldn't it have been more efficient to carve into a beam of one of the "skylar": "The Jan Jansen party was massacred. Erik Eriksen and Lars Larsen survived and are traveling along the river back to our original embarcation point at ...." Natrum (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You assume that the party finding its companions dead must mean that they were "massacred", but based on the translation, that assumption doesn't necessarily follow. You also seem to be assuming that the stone was meant to invite some sort of rescue, which I don't think necessarily follows either.

The Massey twins

I noticed that the Massey twins have recently been highlighted as examples of academic proponents of Norse medieval origin. I suggest that this be removed. Keith Massey's Ph.D is in Hebrew and Semitic Studies, and he does not seem to be involved in academic research any more. The twins have, however, published about other sensational subjects. They claim, for instance, to have solved the mystery of the Phaistos Disc from Crete! B.t.w, the Wikipedia article about the twins has been deleted, so those links will have to go. Jon kare (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Williams on the KRS (Kensington Runestone)

Professor Henrik Williams who is a prominent runologist made the following statement on the runestone in 2004:

The Larsson papers conclusively prove that a KRS-like runic alphabet was known in Sweden before the stone was found. The logical conclusion is that the carver of the Kensington stone was familiar with the same type of runes as were the Larsson brothers. There is thus now a most plausible answer to the legitimate question why a 19th-century carver of the KRS did not use any known set of runes. It seems unlikely, however, that the Larsson runes were widely recognized among late 19th-century Swedes and Swedish-Americans. These runes seem to have a Dalecarlian connection, as has been surmised before. It remains to be shown who had knowledge of them in Minnesota a hundred years ago. The geological evidence of Wolter also needs to be addressed in depth by the proper experts.[1]

I thought it might be of interest.--Berig (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

O.G. Landsverk?

I'm surprised to see nothing on Landsverk's Runic REcords of the Norsemen in North America, publ. St. Olaf's College where he was on faculty, not sure which department...I used to own it, but never fully understood it as his cryptographic analysis is pretty complicated...Skookum1 (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidently nobody else fully understands it either! David Trochos (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's a helpful comment, isn't it? :-| My point is that it's yet another work on the stone (and other runestones); it's over 30 years since I read it so "it's pretty complicated" means I don't remember his conclusions and never understood any cryptography. All I was suggessting here was that it be mentioned in the article. Apparently that's too complicated for you?Skookum1 (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
So have a go at it yourself, Skookum? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Yawn...I'm 53 years old, have bad eyes now and an attention span given to more serious subjects, have about 200 major topic areas of interest of my own right now, I'm not a runologist or "norseologist", I happen to have this page on my watchlist because pre-Columbian contact is one of my interests (I do happen to be half-Norwegian, and by family reputation descended, like a lot of us, from Snorri Karlsefnisson, but that's beside the point), and I happen to have had (and no longer have) Landsverk's book; which AFAIK was at one time one of the few semi-academic ones in print. So all *I* was doing here was expressing surprise it hadn't been covered in this article, and suggesting someone might want to have a look at it and include Landsverks' theories in the article. And what do I get? A string of snide comments....Skookum1 (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for my earlier flippancy, but I was making a serious point, perhaps better expressed over a quarter-century ago by American archaeologist Dean R. Snow (in "American Heritage", Oct-Nov 1981): "Landsverk and others have milked the gibberish found on clumsy fakes and plow-scarred boulders by declaring them to be cryptographic, a device that permits the stones to say virtually anything." David Trochos (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, you see, there you go - that, at least, should be in the article, no? "Plow-scratched boulders" would seem to require some forensic evidence to back up that dismissal though. BTW there's a comment somewhere in the article about how it is impossible to date teh holes in the stone...that is highly debatable given current techniques....but again, this is not my field, just observing....the line in question seems a "toss in", as it's out of context-low from the rest; it seems supposition/synthesis upon reading, I'll look for it and come back....Skookum1 (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This was the line in question:
No non-Native American artifacts dating from before 1492 have been recovered under controlled, professionally conducted archaeological investigations at any great distance from the east coast of the continent; and with current techniques, the dating of any holes cut into rocks in the region is as uncertain as the dating of the Kensington stone itself.
From what little I know of current techniques, geologists can tell a lot by weathering/lichens/microscopy and forensic analysis can also determine what materials were used to cut stone....maybe I'm wrong about that, but on reading that last phrase in the quoted bit, it seemed to me that that claim needed a specific cite, i.e. "and with current techniques, the dating of any holes in the region etc." mabye it's just the wording that seems POV in tone, and I am dubious taht scie3nce is without analytical techniques; more likely the moeny for the needed anayltical techniques might not be available....Skookum1 (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
On Landsverk- rather than give his dubious work space in the articles for every inscription he "decoded", it might be better to create a new paragraph in the Cipher runes article. On the dating of carved stones- it's not easy, given the range of environmental factors which come into play (particularly in regions where the temperature descends below freezing point for part of each year). David Trochos (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Any connection to the NFL team?

Were the Minnesota Vikings named because of this?66.195.36.133 (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, not directly. The vikings football team were named because of the large populations of scandanavians who settled in the area much much later than the supposed viking settlement. The hoax of the kensington runestone comes from the same area and tries to tie back to viking ancestors as a nod to the scandanavian settlers. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use image

Some one please write a fair use rational for File:Kensington runestone.jpg. I have uploaded Commons:File:Kensington Runestone Kens3.gif to Commons, but it only shows half of the stone. Besides, it should be converted to JPEG. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is, nobody knows what the fair use rationale would be. It's the classic Wikimedia no-no of "an image off the Web"- just because one or more sites have permission to use it, that doesn't mean it's in the public domain. The problem could be sidestepped if somebody with a hard-copy pre-1923 book about the KRS could scan an image from it. David Trochos (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured runestone article

As I'm writing this, the featured article is Greece_Runestones about runestones erected in Sweden in memory of Swedes serving in the Byzantine Empire. It is interesting to compare the Kensington Stone to these. The Greece runestones are of course significantly older, so one wouldn't expect them to look the same. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to hear what other runestones in the general style of the Kensington Stone are known from the old world. Were other stones ever erected in similar circumstances?

(Yes, I am still concerned that this article does not adequately reflect the consensus among professional runologists and archaeologists that the Kensington Runestone is a forgery.) -- Jon kare (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Stone moved?

The article doesn't mention the obvious (to me) possibility that the stone is authentic but not native to Minnesota. Has this really not been brought up by the literature? Is there some reason I'm not getting that this theory is preposterous?

The 'authentic but moved stone' would have been on an island west of Vinland and 14 days journey from the sea. Since the stone claims this. Find such an island and you've got yourself a plausible theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerothis (talk • contribs) 07:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"AVM" by a different scribe?

Am I the only one that's noticed that AVM is carved differently from the other letters? Is it a different carver, a different tool, carved at a different date, or some combination of these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerothis (talk • contribs) 07:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"AVM" pretty much has to have been carved at the same time as the rest of the stone, because it is followed by another line of runes. On the other hand, if some Wikipedia-acceptable "reputable authority" has previously suggested that these letters are carved differently (as opposed to just being a different script) then by all means add a sentence or two using that as a reference. David Trochos (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic Qualifications of Investigators

There seems to a tendency for the most enthusiastic proponents of the medieval origin of the stone, not to be native speakers of Scandinavian languages. I just observed that one of the article sections in a parenthesis adds the remark, that a certain Massey holds a PhD from the University of Wisconsin. It does not, however, specify the field of study. Elsewhere on the net one finds information stating that it related to Semitic languages and Theology. But is it possible to ascribe a date to the text on the stone without being able to speak at least one Scandinavian language fluently?888n8 (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What you need is expertise in the historical development of Scandinavian languages. Fluency doesn't come into it, at least not directly. As to laymen's opinons, you're probably right that most Scandinavians are skeptical. And one of the reasons may well be what (little) we have learned about Old Norse and its development into Middle Norwegian / Middle Swedish.Jon kare (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I thought this statement in the article was awfully condescending to advocates for the stone's authenticity. "These advocates tend to be enthusiastic but often lacking in relevant professional credentials (for instance, Viking-origin proponent Keith Massey's Ph.D. is in Hebrew and Semitic Studies)." I don't see how the particular expertise of those mentioned in the article who propose that the stone is a hoax is any better than that? And it seems like everyone here is dismissing that geologist's findings out of hand, but has anyone actually found fault with his research or performed research that suggests his is incorrect? If they have, I would like to know of it. This article suggests that stone proponents haven't done a good job of proving its medieval origin, but it seems to me that stone opponents haven't exactly done a convincing job on their end either.
There are a couple of major problems here. First, nobody on the "anti" side is bothered enough to get the funding for more detailed (and hence more expensive) geological testing. Second, access to vast databases of inscriptions and old Norse texts (runic or otherwise) means that if anybody, at any time or place in the entire history of writing, made a mark or sequence of letters which corresponds with something on the KRS, that can probably be found. A case in point is the "hooked X" sign currently being promoted by Scott Wolter. He claims that it can be found in the signature of Christopher Columbus- which is true, but Columbus also wrote a "hooked Y"- he just happened to finish off ascending diagonal strokes with a little hook-like flourish (also in Columbus' signature, the "X" symbol means the same as in "Xmas", standing for the sound "Ch", not for the sound "A" as in runic inscriptions). Similarly, the "hooked X" found in Rosslyn Chapel is actually a "crossed X"- the "hook" line clearly and deliberately goes right across the upper right stroke of the X. In short, proving a hoax is very difficult, so the best that can be done is to point out how flimsy the evidence for authenticity really is. David Trochos (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The stone's archaeological context is anecdotal, hence lost (when it was pulled out of the ground), altogether unknown. From a scientific outlook, the stone has no verifiable anthropological background. Moreover, although there are some matches here and there, its linguistics don't easily fit anything known from the 14th century (dating its origins there takes some stretching into the unknown). Lastly, the stone showed up at about the worst time it could have done, when there was nationalist bickering between Denmark and Norway along with much new talk about medieval Norse crossings of the Atlantic, never mind it was brought forth by a Swedish farmer. The provenance has always been shakey. Archaelogists can't deal with the stone because it's a one-off, stripped of its context and no linguist of any stripe can verify enough of the writing to gather consensus (either way) as to when it was carved. So, from any methodological outlook it could be a hoax and as yet there has been no way to skirt that. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
There's at least one professional runologist who I believe says the stone is a hoax, James Knirk. And R.I Page is a runic specialist too, although perhaps, I'm not sure, only of AS runes. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I could go so far as to say that from the outlook of a professional linguist, the stone is likely a hoax. However, from the outlook of a gifted hobbiest (amateur) or someone else writing about this odd stone, it's not crazy to think something like this could have been left behind by some wayward Norse sailors in the 14th century. Given it showed up hundreds of miles further south and west than one can easily believe any Norse ever got, there is still a lot we don't know about what small bands of Norse may have been up to in the Hudson Strait and even Hudson Bay (if anything). The latter is all guessing. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My theory

Maybe somebody forged the inscription on the stone 40 to 50 years before Ohman found it. That would explain alot of paradoxes associated with the stone. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Curiously enough, that sounds a lot like my theory (which of course I can't mention in the article). David Trochos (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The article states that it was found that the carving was done 50 - 200 years before it was buried. The citation is 31. However, the article at 31 makes no reference to a timeframe for carving and says work is underway. Therefore this citation is a bit of a misrepresentation and in fact, there is no source given for the 50-200 year claim. The History Channel show stated an older age of carving. I don't remember it but it was too old to attribute to post-Columbian Europeans. Therefore, it seems to me there is significant and well-supported scientific evidence showing that the carving, whatever it means and whoever did it, was done by some pre-Columbian European carver. As a casusal observer at Wiki, I am wondering why the article has not been made more accurate with attention to these facts. 208.78.201.195 (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Authoritative online sources regarding Wolter's geological testing have gradually been disappearing over the past few years, so I've added a reference to his 2005 book. David Trochos (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wolter book self-published

This is evidently self-published, see [2] - "guided self-publishing). Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Rock Itself

Is Graywacke commonly found in that part of Minnesota or could that particular piece of stone have been carried in as a glacial erratic? The stone is rather precisely faced as by a skilled stone cutter. Does Graywacke have natural cleavage planes? The shape of the stone suggests that it was meant to be stood up with the narrow end buried like, say, a grave stone or boundary marker. How does Graywacke weather when exposed to air and is any differential weathering apparent on the surface?

Given that a good portion of the Minnesota population in that era was Scandinavian, who there, or in the entire United States for that matter, would have known enough about Runic to have created the Runestone? In other words, if the stone is a fake, who was the faker and what would have been his motive? Did anyone make any substantial amount of money from the stone's discovery? --Virgil H. Soule (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I will attempt to answer the first part of your question. Graywacke is not native in Kensington: the rocks there are deformed volcanics, and nearby rocks are very old highly metamorphosed ones (e.g., Morton Gneiss). There are exposures of sedimentary rocks from the Western Interior Seaway/Trans-Hudson Seaway nearby. The seaway units with which I am familiar are not graywackes; I would not be surprised if there was some in them, but I haven't found anything that says they are in a brief perusal. This source says that they are found transported to North Dakota, so glacial transport is not out of the question. Graywacke does not cleave (there is no preferred orientation of the minerals and/or grains), but (from looking at the surface in the black and white photo here), it would seem to have a flattened surface that is covered in glacial striations. This suggests that the surface on which the inscription is written was smoothed by glaciers. Much of the rock to the north of Kensington is igneous or metamorphic, though there are also some Trans-Hudson seaway sedimentary rocks. My best guess then is that this graywacke is a glacially-modified and glacially-transported graywacke from this sequence or from a graywacke source in Canada. Awickert (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Professional academics

In his Nov 8 edit, Scott Wolter wrote that professional academics "fail to produce factual evidence" when they question the stone's provenance. I think it would be better to revert this, as it is unsourced opinion coming from a participant in the controversy. Jon kare (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted that whole section, he has a conflict of interest and shouldn't have done that. Minor corrections, sure, but not that. I expect he doesn't know what we expect in situations like this. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Confusing

Not to insult anyone, but this article is pretty crappy. I came here to try and get the straight story on the stone and wasn't really able to figure out much from this article. This might be because opinion is actually split to some degree and/or because it is difficult to know much for certain, but the article is not helping things. It contradicts itself in several places and uses POV pushing language ("it should be noted", etc.) Mostly, though, the problem is that it throws a bunch of unrelated conclusions/facts together w/little explanation as to how things are related.

I may take a crack at fixing this up, but first I guess I'll have to do some research to figure out what the article is even trying to say... For now, I'd like to make sure I have the gist of the situation right: The evidence is also not strong enough to prove it a fake conclusively. However, the evidence (primarily linguistic) also isn't nearly strong enough to prove it legit. Thus, it is assumed to be a fake b/c that is the more logical default position. More-or-less correct? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really more-or-less correct, sadly. The Runestone is another Schrödinger's MacGuffin- an object which gains significance precisely because it has not been proved to be either real or fake. If it had been found in 1898 in an archaeological context which clearly demonstrated a medieval Scandinavian origin, like L'Anse Aux Meadows, then it would have been accepted by now as interesting, but not enough to justify abandoning Columbus Day; if, on the other hand, it had been proved that one or more local Freemasons cooked up a hoax in the 19th century, then it would still probably be in a local museum, but there wouldn't be a giant replica outside... David Trochos (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
ThaddeusB: You are right, *and* wrong. :) The evidence is enough to prove it a fake conclusively, but the only ones who can do that with authority are people who are authorities on subjects as middle age linguistics and nordic runic writing. But they aren't doing it (very much), because it's such an obvious fake that they don't take it seriously enough to bother. Therefore almost any sources and authorities on the stone are happy amateurs with an agenda who ignores any evidence that contradicts there agenda. Your stance is therefore the correct one for Wikipedia.
Still, in the words of Runologist Helmer Gustavson "every Scandinavian runologist and expert in Scandinavian historical linguistics has delcared the Kenstington stone a hoax". --OpenFuture (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ship's Ballast?

Why is it that everyone automatically assumes that Swedes must have visited Kensington in 1362 simply because of the date on the rune stone, or the stone must be a fake? It's quite plausible that the stone is quite authentic, but was brought to America in the 1800's, perhaps as ship's ballast. It was then discarded and refound 10-40 years later, after the tree grew over it. Has anyone researched prior settlers who might have been in the area where the stone was found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillegigant (talk • contribs) 07:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if the stone had been found in a place where runestones are common, like Sweden, it would have quickly been dismissed. It's a bad, obvious fake, made by somebody who knows nothing about runestones. It's only seen as genuine by people that for some reason wants Scandinavians to have discovered Minnesota. That said, runestones doens't have a tendency to end up as ballast, and ballast doesn't have a tendency to end up on top of a hill far from any navigable port. The theory is more likely than viking knight templars, but still completely impossible. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wolter: Hooked X table of contents

Thought I'd include the table of contents from Wolter's latest book "The Hooked X - Key to the secret history of North America". It makes it easier to judge if it belongs to the fringe or the mainstream. Here it is: 

       1.  Kensington Rune Stone Summary and New evidence.
       2.  Kensington Rune Stone Codes, Gotland and the Cistercians
       3.  Spirit Pond Rune Stones and the Hooked X
       4.   Sacred Geometry, Rosslyn, and Freemasonry.
       5.   Archaeopetrography
       6.   New England Artifacts and Sites
       7.   Venus Alignments and the Sacred Feminine
       8.   The Goddess Ideology.

This is taken from a (sympathetic) review at the sci.archeaology newsgroup by Eric Stevens. It turns out that the Cistercians and Freemasons are (roughly) Knights Templar. The New England artifacts include the Newport Tower. Jon kare (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-published fringe. I think Eric would agree that it's fringe. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Be very wary of sloppy, overbroad (and hence meaningless) terms like mainstream and fringe. There can be lots of overlap in popular books on these kinds of topics and outlooks can (and do) shift when new scientific research comes in.
This said, while self-published books now and then may be ok to cite as sources, they're mostly not taken as reliable here, often because of the author's background (Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Fringe is too weak a word. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Fringe is so weak it's meaningless, which is one of many reasons why WP:FRINGE has never become policy here. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
What does here mean? This article? Articles about archaeology? All of wikipedia? (Not a rhetorical question) Jon kare (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Kehoe: The Kensington Runestone: Approaching a Research Question Holistically

I'm starting a section about a book I haven't read. I admit that this is odd. But the way I see it, other proponents of authenticity are amateurs. Alice Beck Kehoe, on the other hand, seems to have a quite relevant academic background. She retired in 2000. At that time, she appears to have been an authority on pre-columbian North American indian culture, which she studied using several methods. These include cultural anthropological studies of current indians, as well as archaeology. On the face of it, she deserves to be taken more seriously than other proponents.

Whatever her chief arguments are, the article should probably mention them. What are they?

The Kensington book came five years into retirement. Since then, she's written a book about archaeological controversies, and co-authored an introduction to archaeology.

Google scholar turns up lots of citations of her academic work. However, there are only 2 citations of the Kensington book. Neither is from a proper journal, and 1 is from The Society for Scientific Exploration, a society for the study of unusual and unexplained phenomena. The book does not seem to have been enthusiastically received by her academic colleagues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon kare (talk • contribs) 14:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the KR was yanked out of the ground with zero heed paid to its archaeological context, which was then swiftly lost, most professional scholars, linguists, archaeologists and anthropologists have understandably been wary of dealing with it for over a century now. Study of that rock mostly winds up on rabbit trails of speculation. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Jon kare: She is also an amateur when it comes to the stone, as her only possible expertise would be archaeology, and it has no archaeological context.
Gwen Gale: Professionals has not been wary of dealing with the stone. Olaus J. Breda, looked at it, apparently in 1898 (a time where "archaeological context" was an unkown concept) and declared it a hoax. Oluf Rygh did the same. George T. Flom looked at it and made a long list of objections on why teh language wasn't medeaval. Sven Jansson, Erik Moltke, Harry Anderson and K. M. Nielsen then looked at it and declared it a hoax. Theodore C. Blegen said it was a prank. And recently Helmer Gustavson also declared it a "non-enigmatic" fake. You can't pretend that professionals have been wary of dealing with it. They have not. They have just declared it a fake. And you won't find many peer-reviewed publications on it, because it's such a bad and obvious fake, that there is nothing to publish. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
We already know you think it's a fake. I think it may be a fake but our outlooks have no sway here. Only sources have sway, even sources we may not like, or may think of as weak or stretched. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It is correct that what I think is irrelevant. I never claimed it was. However, the published opinions of Olaus J. Breda, Oluf Rygh, George T. Flom, Sven Jansson, Erik Moltke, Harry Anderson, K. M. Nielsen, Theodore C. Blegen and Helmer Gustavsson *does* matter. You claimed that professionals have been wary of dealing with it. That's not correct. They have been quite anwaury fo dealing with it. The problem is that they all think it's a hoax, and you don't want to hear that, so you pretend that they didn't say anything. You constantly refer to WP policies, in some sort of fake pretense that I don't know or disagree with them. The problem is that you constantly refer to irrelevant policies, policies that are not in debate. We are not discussing whether my opinions or published sources opinion is relevant. We agree on that. Currently we disagree on if there is any serious published sources or not. There *are* sources. You just don't like what they say. That's your problem. Not mine and not Wikipedias. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Going by the above, I think you're mistaken as to what I've posted here. It's ok if you've misunderstood me, but if you want to talk with me further about this, my talk page awaits. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

regarding my rewording of the problematic paragraph in the article, I'm going to try a slight variant. I agree that I was wrong to use "considered", but unless Kehoe specifically refrained from using the terms "Mandan", "Red Horn" etc. and left her publisher to suply them separately online, "alluded to" is just linguisticaly wrong, in British English at the very least. David Trochos (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Native American tradtional sources

A little edit war has developed between me and OpenFuture over the following passage:

In The Kensington Runestone: Approaching a Research Question Holistically (2005) archeologist Alice Beck Kehoe alluded to reports of contact between native American populations and outsiders prior to the time of the runestone. These include historical references to the "blond" Indians among the Mandan on the Upper Missouri River, signs of a tuberculosis epidemic among American Indians about 1000 A.D. and the Hochunk (Winnebago) story about an ancestral hero "Red Horn" and his encounter with "red-haired giants."

I think it's a legitimate inclusion in a section on historical references which may relate to pre-Columbian European exploration west of the Great Lakes. Thoughts please. David Trochos (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

None of this is in any way any proof or even indication of contacts. We know there has been contact. Is it likely to have been more contact except at Newfoundland? No. Does stories of red-haired giants tell us anything about contacts with anyone? No. It's just stories. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There were most likely many and sundry pre-Columbian contacts between Europeans and native Americans in North America. Independent sources which try to straightforwardly link any evidence of these with the Kensington runestone might cited as such, but editors can't do this themselves, that would be synthesis. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That, I suspect, is why Kehoe has been cited in the way seen above. And what OpenFuture calls "just stories" anthropologists call "tradition". David Trochos (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
That was confused answer. Did I ever claim the stories weren't traditional? It's still just stories, and traditional stories about red-haired giants do not prove the existence of red-haired giants, and they sure as heck do not prove pre-columbian contact of any sort. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
We seem to be straying here into the old "proof is not the same as evidence" thing. David Trochos (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
This encyclopedia is not about truth (or "proof" if one likes), it's about verifiable sources of the independent kind. Published sources which link OF's "stories about red-haired giants" with the KR can be cited here. Published sources which put forth the notion that drawing any such link is more or less codswallop can also be cited, likewise that most academics (wisely or not) are wary of such notions. The pith is, any link between those tales and the KR must be drawn straightforwardly by the cited source, not the en.WP text. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Whatever the conclusion, if the paragraph is restored, please refer to Kehoe as an *anthropologist*, not an *archeaologist*. See her wikipedia article, which links to a biographical sketch at Scientific American. Jon kare (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
In the US, often the same difference. See this from her biographical sketch at our article: "Alice Kehoe is an original, there were no copies made," Allen says. "One of the founding mothers of feminist archaeology, she has been a thoughtful and electrifying presence in the discipline for half a century." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Possibly. You probably know better then I do. But is she an anthropologist who is criticizing mainstream archaeology from the outside, or one who has crossed over and is doing archeaological work which is recognized as such by archaeologists? Jon kare (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
'We seem to be straying here into the old "proof is not the same as evidence" thing.' - No we don't. We are however since long into the old "verifiable, fact-based" vs "pure fantasy" discussion as all pseudo-science always is about. Wikipedia is about facts, and they way to substantiate facts are by using reliable, verifiable sources, that actually support the things claimed in the text. And a text by a social anthropologist that alludes to contact by referring to storytelling about giants is not a reliable verifiable source that there actually was pre-columbian contact ever, and even less does it support that there was contact in Minnesota at the time of the stone, and in absolutely no way whatsoever does it support the authenticity of the stone at all.
It has no more relevancy for this article than talk about Carlos Tevez amazing hat-trick this monday. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
To begin with, you're welcome to cite a reliable source which calls another cited source "pseudo-science" or "pure fantasy." Otherwise it's your own original research and has no sway here. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It's the idea that mentions of red-heads support the authenticity of, or is otherwise relevant to, the Kensington Stone that is pure fantasy, which I think everybody here can agree with. I haven't seen any reference to any sources claiming this. Just a text that claim that a published source "alludes" to it. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
If one sticks to citing sources, the sources will tend to speak for themselves. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
So I'll stick a sourced comment on Carlos Tevez hat trick in then? :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Not to sound harsh, but that would stray from WP:POINT and if carried on, could be blockable. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
You need to read this: Emoticon --OpenFuture (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh and Reductio ad absurdum --OpenFuture (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the paragraph, with Kehoe as an anthropologist, which I agree is the most appropriate designation in this case. David Trochos (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Why? That still has nothing to do with the topic, namely the Kensington Runestone. Kehoe alluding to pre-columbian contact through stories about red-haired giants still has nothing to do with the Kensington Runestone. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

< The paragraph text notes Kehoe's book but there is no citation to page numbers or text in the book. Does Kehoe bring up the KR? Does she link it (fittingly or not) with the Mandans and other NA legends? If not, this paragraph is on the bleeding edge of synthesis and more than likely doesn't belong in the article. Either way, a helpful citation is lacking. This aside, I do recall (a long time ago) reading sources here and there which do speculate on how those legends could be somehow linked to the KR. Such sourced speculations/outlooks, from an independent and verifiable source, would be ok to cite in the article but so far, this paragraph doesn't make it. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm puxxled by your question "Does Kehoe bring up the KR?" I wasn't the person who originally added this paragraph, and I haven't read the book, but it is a book about the KR. Meanwhile, I'm going to change the paragraph to improve the ref, based on an online contents list. David Trochos (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. My mistake, because I was looking for a <ref> citation with a book title and didn't see it, I somehow missed that the name of the book was carried in the text. This paragraph is not original research/spanning, since even if the author is wildly speculating, a citation to verifiably published speculation is allowed and given the title, she is straightforwardly linking it to the KR. Moreover she's an anthropologist, so legends and historical reports of human behaviour are a spot on fit with her academic background, from the outlook of WP:RS. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Right, it's not original research, it's just irrelevant. It's not relevant to the article just because it is in a book about the Kensington Runestone. You can have a book about the Stone that has a passage of the beauty of Minnesota as an aside, or as background. That doesn't mean we should quote that. It's only relevant to the article if she uses this as arguments concerning the stone. And since it says that she "alludes" to it, that doesn't seem to be the case. Now David Trochos changed "alludes" to "considered" which is interesting, since you admit that you haven't read the book, so how the heck do you know if she considered or alluded? I'm reverting that. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it may be irrelevant. You're welcome to cite sources which say so (that Mandans and NA legends have no sway as to the KR). Don't edit war over this. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome to cite sources which say that Carlos Tevez' hat trick has no sway as to the KR. No? Right, you got who needs to show sources here backwards. You need to find sources that *say* it is relevant. Not the other way around. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


OK, we take this once again then: The mention of red-haired giants is *not* an indication of pre-columbian trans-oceanic contact. And even if it was a reliable source talking about pre-columbian transoceanic contact, which it is not, it is not relevant for the article unless this trans-oceanic contact was with Norse people in Minnesota. Which it isn't.

It doesn't help that the source is a scholar who is working outside of her field, and the books is not a published peer-reviewed source by any standards. But that's normal in an article about pseudo-archeology, so that's not the main problem, but it is of course still a problem. But the main problem with it is that it simply is off topic for the article. Stories about red-haired giants have absolutely no connection to the Kensington runestone whatsoever. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You say stories about red-haired giants have absolutely no connection to the Kensington Runestone whatsoever. Anthropologist Alice Kehoe, in a book from a publisher which to some extent specialise in anthropology, offers the possibility that there may be a connection. If anybody has published, in a reasonably scholarly form (and not self-published), reasons why such a possibility is unreasonable, then use that published work in this article. David Trochos (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
So quote her when she claims there is such a connection then. As you are well aware, the original version of that paragraph was that she alluded to these stories in her book. That doesn't mean she claims there is a connection. Now if the paragraph in question said that Kehoe used these stories to support the possible authenticity of the stones, sure. But that's not what the paragraph said. It just said the Kehoe alluded to the stories. OK? In what context? We don't know. With what purpose? We don't know. The paragraph isn't about the runestone in any way shape or form. It just says that Kehoe alluded to these stories. Now you explain to me what that has to do with KR and why it should stay in the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As the boook costs twice as much to buy here in England as it does in the US, I'm not about to obtain a copy. I can, however, offer the following quotation from the review of the book in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, by Helen Tanner of the Newberry Library (I think most contributors to this discussion have already seen it, but it's useful to have here in context):

The section headed "Biology" contains a battery of provocative ideas that come up when ancient events of potential archaeological and anthropological significance are mentioned. Some points suggest contact between native populations and outsiders prior to the time of the rune stone. These include historical references to the "blond" Indians among the Mandan on the Upper Missouri River, the signs of a tuberculosis epidemic among American Indians about 1000 A.D., and the Hochunk (Winnebago) story about an ancestral hero "Red Horn" and his encounter with "red-haired giants."

David Trochos (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So I guess it's up to me to read the book... But anyway, we can now rephrase it to that she claims that the stories suggest contact, which is a step forward. There is still no actual connection to the rune stone, as contact with "outsiders" doesn't mean that these outsiders where Norse, nor that they outsiders made the runestone. The paragraph is *still* completely irrelevant for the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
David, thanks for the quote. I'd like to point out that journal is published by the Society for Scientific Exploration, which describes itself as 'a society for the study of unusual and unexplained phenomena'. Have you seen reviews in serious scholarly journals? (The quote probably still works as a summary, but does not indicate scholarly acceptance.)
Btw, the archive of the journal is online here. Jon kare (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Technically, Journal of Scientific Exploration IS a "serious scholarly journal"- it just happens to cover a subject area most scholars don't take seriously. There are reviews of Kehoe's book in other journals, such as the American Anthropological Association's Anthropology of Consciousness (Volume 17 Issue 2, pp106-108), but without subscriptions, I can't tell you anything useful about them! David Trochos (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I've never heard of this runestone, and can't be bothered to read the article or the discussion; but since access to that book review is an issue, allow me to be briefly helpful. The review notes that there are several chapters on the significance of the runestone and related issues of historiography; less relevant here. On the key chapters I quote the review: "In Chapter 3, “What Can Archaeology Show?” Kehoe discusses archaeological sites in maritime and arctic Canada where the Norse (and much later the English) were present. Through artifact collections, as well as Inuit stories collected in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, she builds a credible case for longstanding European occupation. In Chapter 4, “The Hard Data: Geology,” Kehoe presents the results of a study of the Runestone commissioned by the Minnesota Historical Society. In 1909, the Society asked Newton Winchell, “Minnesota’s foremost geologist [who] brought unparalleled experience to the Runestone investigation... heightened by a reputation for great diligence and honesty,” to proceed with a survey of the stone (p. 31). In Winchell’s opinion, the Runestone was, and therefore is, genuine. He concluded that “there was strong support for an authentic Runestone date of 1362 and little reason to suspect fraud” (p. 32). Despite Winchell’s conclusion, the Society ultimately decided that the Runestone was a hoax (p. 33). Here, Kehoe brings the reader up to date with the latest investigations by Scott Wolper. A century after Winchell, Wolper concluded that the geological evidence points to authentic carvings on the Runestone. In Chapter 5, “Linguistics: Recognizing Medieval Dialect Variation,” Kehoe addresses the fact that in 1899 and 1910 (when the Runestone was first investigated), linguists had not “discovered” the range of vocabulary or verb tenses of medieval Norse runic that were actually used in similar stone etchings in Europe (pp. 42–44). The author introduces a late-20th century study by Robert A. Hall, Jr. that corroborates the geological evidence of the age of the carvings in the Runestone. Chapter 6, “Biology: Tuberculosis? Blond Mandans? Red-haired Giants?” explores the contributions that biological anthropology might bring to the authenticity question. Kehoe dismisses such evidence as “tangential.” " The review concludes "This book should be read, taught, and savored. It is a gem. Highly recommended." Source: "The Kensington Runestone: Approaching a Research Question Holistically" by Alice B. Kehoe, Anthropology of Consciousness, Volume 17, Issue 2, Date: September 2006, Pages: 106-108. Review by Christina Beard-Moose. Hope this helps. Rd232 talk
So even author thinks it's tangential. QED: It's not relevant for the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that the book likely should be mentioned in the article, but given that "Kehoe dismisses such evidence as 'tangential'" the sentence needs to be reworked. As it stands, it appears to falsley represent the contents of the book and the author's views. ClovisPt (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't have a problem with the book being mentioned if it is mentioned in some relevant way. Now picking up the book by extracting a topic that even the author deems "tangential" makes no sense. It should clearly be in the Literature section (and it is). And it should be referenced when it says something relevant to the stone. But now it's mentioned as discussing something that is not relevant. I still don't see why there should be a paragraph in the article about something that's irrelevant to the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Now revised to explain the context a bit. David Trochos (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I see what you're trying to do. But should the article try to discuss each of Holand's speculations? Doesn't sound encyclopedic to me, and it makes the article confusing to read. Jon kare (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Excellent edit, David. That seems like a real improvement to the article. Wish I could of thought of phrasing it that way. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree it's ridiculous to go through all speculation, but if Holand actually uses this as support for the authenticity of the stone I think it could stay. If not I think it still should go, but with the current phrasing I can live with it. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The main reason why I had tried so hard to keep the native tradition reference was because I had been aware of it as a meme, without actually knowing its source (and thus was happy, initially, to go with Kehoe as the source supplied by another editor). Thanks to this discussion, and Rd232's input, I was forced to look for earlier sources of the meme, and found Holand (he actually used it in interviews over 20 years before his 1932 publication). Assuming that others were aware of the meme, I still think it's useful to include a brief discussion. David Trochos (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kensington_Runestone/Archive_2&oldid=357773175"