Skip to content

The Kensington Runestone

January 2, 2009

I love the Kensington Runestone. But there are many misconceptions about it, and a lot of misinformation floating around. Most transliterations and translations and analysis is done by people who knows absolutely nothing either of runes or medieval Scandinavian language, and therefore most analysis you find on the web is full of mistakes. Admittedly, I’m also just an amateur, but still, history is a hobby of mine, and I like runes and language history. So I should be able to correct some misconceptions, even if I professional on medieval runes would make a better job than me.

To make sure we get things right, lets start from the beginning. The stone itself, and the inscription. It looks like this:

If we look at the runes there are a couple of immediately obvious things. First of all, they are “stung”, i.e, there are dots. That practice evolved during early medieval times, around the 12th century, as the younger futhark did not have enough signs to cover all the sounds of the Scandinavian languages, so a brief look tells us that the runes must be medieval. There is however older futhark t and n-runes instead of the versions more common in medieval texts, which would place the text back in the early viking age or earlier.

Some runes in fact are stung twice, which doesn’t fit with the medieval rune set. And worse, the third rune is an O with a cross in, and two dots above. Now, the O character did not exist in medieval runes or earlier runes either. Instead of an O, you used ᚮ, a straight line with two dashes to the left. A rune that in fact also is used many times on the stone. And the two dots above it seems to indicate that it is umlautes, like the swedish character Ö. Is that what is meant? Umlauts was invented in the 15th century and the first use in Swedish is from 1495. Their final form of two dot’s is something that appeared in the 18th century. So, we have a mix of runes that span upwards a thousand years here, and several of them like this ö-rune and a stung l rune are practically unknown. That’s intriguing.

So let’s try and figure out what it means, and it maybe gets clearer. If you look at the runes that are unambiguous and clear, no matter if they are medieval or viking age or iron age, and replace everything else with question marks you get:

?:g?ter:o?:??:norrmen:bo:
I:obþ?gelsef?rþ:fro:
??nl?nþ:of:?est:?i:
h?þe:l?ger:?eþ:?:s???r:en
þ?gs:rise:norr:fro:þeno:st?n:
?i:??r:o?:fis?e:en:þ?gh:??tir:
?i:?om:?em:f?n:?:m?n:r?þe:
?f:bloþ:og:þeþ:AVM:
fr?else:?f:ill?

and on the side is written:

e?r:?:m?ns:me:h?met:?t:se:
?btir:more:s?ib:??:þ?gh:rise:
fr?m:þeno:?h:?hr:????

Now, there is a lot of question marks, but we can start guessing what is supposed to be said. And the first row is the most interesting here. We can figure out that the first rune is actually a number. That type of runes is very unusual, except when used in cipher runes, which this isn’t. Here they are actually used as numbers. The first row therefore has to be “8 göter ok 22 norrmen bo”. Turns out that third rune is an “ö” after all! Is is an o with two dots as an umlaut. Putting umlats on runes is not common, and the fact that we have an ö on the stone means it can not be earlier that 16th-17th century.

The use of stung runes is also unusual. Normally, stung runes means a variation of the sound. For example, for d you would use a stung t-rune. But here the only sound that matches the stung ᛘ rune is v. And instead of using a stung t for d a ᚦ, normally used for þ (the same sound as th in “the”), is used. We also now can figure out that a stung ᚷ rune must be an a, which also fits with it having umlauts in some places, which makes it an ä. The ᛒ rune is a bit of a mystery still. I should be a b, but that doesn’t fit. Most places it seems to be an p, but in some places an f. I’ll write it as p for the moment. The stung l-rune is not unknown, but it means a double of fat l. That doesn’t work here, it’s could be a mistake. It was most likely made as an l-rune, and then corrected to an e-rune. Another mistake was done when “sten” was written “stnn” and then corrected.

If we take all these things into account, we’ll get the following transliteration:

8:göter:ok:22:norrmen:po:
I:opdagelsefard:fro:
vinland:of:vest:vi:
hade:läger:ved:2:skear:en
dags:rise:norr:fro:deno:sten:
vi:var:ok:fiske:en:dagh:eptir:
vi:kom:hem:fan:10:man:röde:
af:blod:og:ded:AVM:
fräelse:af:illu

ear:10:mans:ve:havet:at:se:
eptir:vore:skip:14:dagh:rise:
from:deno:öh:ahr:1362

Which in english would be:

8 Goths and 22 Norwegians on a exploration-journey from Vinland of west. Vi had camp with 2 skear one days journey north from this stone. We were fishing one day. We came home, found 10 men red from blood and dead. AVM (Ave Maria) save from bad.

Is 10 mens by sea to see after our ship 14 day travel from this island year 1362.

The problems with this? Well, first of all, the date says 1362. We have already established above that the use of umalut  means this stone is no older than 16th century. We are at least 200 years off. And secondly, it’s not medieval language. The spelling is idiosyncratic, but mainly 19th century, and the grammar is completely modern. The language in the 14th century would have the plural nominative of Göte as “götar”, not “göter”. The pronoun “deno”, as used in “deno sten” (this stone) is unheard of. Since it’s “from this stone” both the pronoun and the noun, should be in accusative case. It should be “dænna” not “deno”. And it goes on like that. There is simply no medieaval grammar in there. The grammar is either modern, or just wrong. Sure, taking into account dialectical variations and the possibility of these people sing a simpler language, some modernization would be OK, but not a complete modernisation of the grammar.

So there is no trace of anything medieaval in this, really. And worse: There’s english in it. It doesn’t say “fra deno”, “frå deno” or “från deno”, it sais “from deno”. And the men are not “döda” or “döde”, they are “ded”. And the word “opdagelsefard”, “exploration journey” is modern. No concept of “exploring” and making expeditions existed during this time. The vikings who discovered Iceland, Greenland and Vinland did so by mistake, and after they found it, they moved there to settle, because they wanted more land. You did not “explore”. This stone is written by somebody whose main language for quite a while has been english and has never seen any medieval Scandinavian language. Neither has they seen many commemorative rune stones. “We were fishing one day. We came home”. Does this sound like a commemorative runestone to you? No it doesn’t. Such a stone would rather name the ten dead persons, and who had the stone made. People on such an explorative journey expect to bump into problems, and would not make some sort of little story about it. They would also not make an underhand implication that the ten men was killed by the natives. They would probably say so straight out. There is no need to just imply things. There is also no way in heck you could get to Kensington, Douglas, Minnesota from the sea in 14 days. It’s even 250 kilometers to Lake Superior, which assumes that they have gotten the ships up there. Past Niagra falls. :) Why would they do that? It took later explorers hundreds of years to get to Minnesota.

Intriguingly, recently a paper from 1885 surfaced with contained several lists of different character styles and alphabets, two of them different rune rows. Those two rows together cover almost all the runes on the stone, and the stones rune-style can therefore be tied to 19th century Sweden. The only problem with that paper is that it matches too well. It even has the stung l-rune, and that weird double-stung n-rune, which is supposed to mean u. However, that makes the last word on the front “illu”, which makes no sense. And the stung l-rune is supposed to mean el, which makes the word “skelar”, which makes no more sense than “skear”. But no matter if that newly discovered rune row is correct or not, nothing can save the authenticity of the Kensington runestone.

And this is what is so fascinating with this stone. The stone clearly is fake. It is not even a good fake. It’s a bad, stupid fake, which claims something ridiculous, namely that a bunch of Scandinavians reached Minnesota well over three hundred years before the French fur trappers usually seen as the first Europans there. And are there any reasons to assume the stone is not modern? No. None. Nothing in the making of the stone contradicts a date of the stone of the late 19th century. So what happened? Well, the stone was, surprise, surprise, discovered by a Swedish American farmer, Olof Öhman, on his lands. The stone is obviously made either by him or his Norwegian neighbor, as a joke. But people fell for it. And funnily enough, they are still falling for it. More than a hundred years later. The stone now stands in it’s own museum in Kenstington Alexandria, where it apparently is displayed as if it is genuine. It’s a monument to humanitys great desire to get fooled.3

Olof Öhman is no doubt laughing his socks off in his grave. :-)

Sources:

http://www.arild-hauge.com/eindex.htm

Gösta Bergman: Svensk Språkhistoria, ISBN 91-518-1747-0

About these ads

From → Uncategorized

100 Comments
  1. d2m permalink

    How is this plone or python related? Please check your ‘tags’

  2. Oups! Sorry! Fixed!

    I myself is annoyed when people subscribe their whole RSS stream to the Plone planet and then blather about other stuff. I’ll remove the default checking of plone and python as tags, I think.

  3. I found this through Planet Plone and found it really interesting!

  4. Well, it won’t happen again, anyway! :) (I hope)

  5. Alexandria permalink

    The KRS is displayed at the Runestone Museum in Alexandria, MN. NOT in Kensington,MN. Check your facts before you call it a stupid fake.

  6. And you think it’s current location is relevant to it’s authenticity?

  7. Martijn Faassen permalink

    Obviously if you got the location wrong, you got everything else entirely wrong too, Lennart. :)

    Interesting article, even though I found it in the Plone planet too.

    I did a bit of research into (supposed) Norse artifacts in north America a few years ago, when I got into editing a couple of wikipedia articles:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_of_Bremen

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Penny (created this)

  8. Yes, obviously. :) It’s a funny thing that so many Kensington fanatics use it as an argument that “The vikings reached America before Columbus”, when of course this is proven already, independently. You don’t need runestones for that.

    The maine penny is a good reminder that prehistorical society was way more globalized than we tend to think.

  9. Martijn Faassen permalink

    Yes it’s quite possible the Maine penny was the result of trade; that would certainly not be a unique occurrence. The link at the bottom of that article has a critical examination that suggests it might have been a plant as well, though.

  10. Martijn Faassen permalink

    Oh, and there’s no evidence that the Norse reached the *US* before Columbus, just Canada, which may explain why some people want the Kensington rune stone to be real (especially if the area has Scandinavian immigrants). I guess Canada doesn’t count. :)

  11. That could very well be the psychological explanation.

    If you have read Sir Terry Pratchetts (KBE, kn) book “Strata” he has a funny twist on that, where the viking relationship with the indians are friendly, and sparc a process of state forming amongst the american indians, which then promptly invade and occupy Europe. :)

  12. columbus, the vikings, the chinese, the knights templar, all suspected of discovering north america first?

    that would be like saying the indians took their war canoes to europe and discovered bible thumpers were burning witches who used herbs at the stake…

    duh…

  13. No it wouldn’t. Sorry, your comment is just confused.

  14. NorwayLake permalink

    Why does all of this make you so nervous? There are many, many other traces of Viking exploration in these parts of MN. Bearded axes that have been carbon dated, other runestones, mooring holes in rock, blond haired, blue eyed Indians as seen by Lewis and Clarke, etc. Not to mention the fact that most turn of the century immigrant farmers attempting to “prove their claim” really didn’t have the time to sit around learning runic writing (this guy really had no education at all) and chisel it into an enormous stone. Then take the time to bury it…under the roots of a tree! By the way, it would not even occur to a good Lutheran to write AVM. Most well-educated people in the Midwest accept this as long-standing fact. Of course you can bend the truth every which way to accomodate your strange prejudices. Have you been to Alexandia? You should jump on a plane and actually see what you seem to delight in rebuking. Otherwise, you’re just an ignorant, pedantic showboat.

  15. It doesn’t make me nervous at all.

    And no, there are no traces of viking exploration in Minnesota at all. And even if the Kensington rune stone wasn’t such an obvious and bad fake, it would tsill not be a trace of viking exploration, as this is around 200 years after the viking era ended.

    Yes, the guys really had no education at all. That’s why the stone is such a total and obvious fake. Whoever did it had not bothered to learn anything neither about rune stones, runes or the Scandinavian languages of this time.

    No well educated people in the midwest accepts it. The problem is that not only did the guys who made the rune stone not bother to learn anything, they people who look at it and try to prove that it’s not a fake doesn’t learn anything.

    I don’t need to see the stone in person to know that it’s a fake. There is nothing that looking at it can teach me that I don’t already know, unless it turns out it’s actually made of papier-maché.

    I wonder if somebody can tell me why the most ignorant comments and emails always come from people with aol.com emails….

  16. Very interesting collation of other people’s findings; I must confess I am just beginning to investigate this subject, almost by accident.

    I wonder though, that just like galileo and copernicus shifted paradigms in thought, if the conversation about the runestone is not so much a discussion of authenticity in and of itself, but moreso a discussion to the true credit for the origins of christianity on the continent…

    As a person of ancestry that comes via the Eichsfeld region of germany (Vatterode), and before that comes down from the danish peninsula, my hertitage comes from this “scandinavia.” It is heartening that my distant ancestors, like my family, saw this new world as a promised land. I only regret leif ericsson didn’t visit down the mississippi and discover the interior as far as St. Louis where I live. He would have truly known what it meant to be in God’s Country.

    The stone is half-fake. The other half is half-real. Much like the account of every other “discoverer” of America. Any real American will tell you it doesn’t matter where you come from. It only matters what you become once you’re here. :)

  17. I don’t know what reason there is for people to claim the stone is real when it’s clearly a full-on fake. Maybe it is a desire to see their Scandinavian ancestry be the first Christians in their area. I wouldn’t know, I don’t understand that type of thinking.

  18. Jon Carlson permalink

    geologist have determined that the stone was carved in the 17th century at the latest.

  19. The Geologists themselves (Scott Wolter and Sherry Weglahn) says 50-200 years ago. http://web.archive.org/web/20020818213903/http://www.amengtest.com/news/01winter/runestone.html
    It’s also is obviously biased, and a scientific paper on the research is not available. It’s therefore worth no more than if I would say it. We can find some small quotes though, in various articles. Here for example he says that the dates (apparently 50 to 200 years) is based on samples from the sides, not from the runes. http://www.d.umn.edu/publications/bridge/201/alumnpro.html This is of course highly suspiescous, and the reason is given here: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/kens/kens.htm
    “However, roughly 90% of the runeforms were recently carved or recarved, removing any such deposits that may have originally been present. ”
    What he is saying is that the surface of the runes is recent. The sides of the stones are weathered, but the runes are not. If the runes are recently carved, or recently recarved, we don’t know. But any deposits that can show the runes to be old is evidently not there. The conclusion is hard and obvious: The stone is a fake. What age the sides are is completely irrelevant. It’s the age of the runes that are relevant, nothing else.

  20. Steve Simonson permalink

    There are three primary facts that the writer has ignored. The first fact is that when the stone was found, they did not allege it was norse, but rather that it possibly was an old Indian tablet. The second is that Olag never sought to make any fame or fortune from the stone, and rather sold it to a buyer for a very small amount, which would imply that he placed very little value on it (so it would not have been made by him as some prank). Finally, all who have interpreted the text have done so based upon their expertise in “current language” without a full understanding of the dynamics and symantics of the language as it would have existed in the 14th century. For example, the use of abbreviations, (AV M, for example) which was common in other stone carvings of the period, being used to save time, space and energy in making the stone text (as carving stone is not as easy as writing on paper, or typing on computer). These facts tend to support the notion thats someone other than Olag would have carved the stone, as he was a farmer with no education on the historical context of the message.

  21. I’m not sure who you refer to as “the writer”, but I don’t think the two first change anything. I can however assure you that I definitely have not interpreted it based only on current language without taking into consideration 14th century language. In fact that’s one of my points. The language of the stone is completely modern. It’s not 14th century Scandinavian, it’s 19th century Scandinavian, with English misspellings.

    I assume that with “Olag” you mean Olof Öhman, one of the discoverers. You seem to treat him as the only person involved or ever accused of making the stone. In fact several people was involved in finding the stone, including but not restricted to Olof, Olofs son and their Norwegian neighbor Nils Flaten. And then there is of course John P Gran, whose children claim he and Öhman made it.

    You also take up his lack of historical education. But that fit perfectly with the fact that the rune stone completely lacks historical knowledge. It’s an obvious fraud, made by somebody who has very little or no knowledge about 14th century Scandinavian or 14th century runes. The language is 18th century Scandinavian with 18th century runes. This doesn’t mean Olof Öhman made it. But it means that he probably could have made it if he wanted to.

    But all that is besides the point. We’ll never prove who made it. The stone is still a very bad fake.

  22. Jimmey Seven permalink

    Have you read either of Scott Wolter’s books?

    He has spent a significant amount of time researching the rune stone.

    Its obvious you have not. You are twisting facts to fit your preconceived misconceptions.

    Some of the links you post above undermine your shallow arguments.

  23. I note that you do not mention what facts I’m “twisting”, nor how, and neither in what way any of my links undermine the arguments.

    I would like to know why you feel so strongly about the issue, and why you are unable to accept that it’s a fake. That’s the real mystery when it comes to this stone.

  24. C FUHRMANN permalink

    MR REGEBRO, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY YOU “FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT THE ISSUE”? IS THIS THE OLD CATHOLIC/COLUMBUS ARGUMENT??
    IN ANY CASE, YOUR POSITION IS BASED SOLELY UPON INTERACTION AMONG NEIGHBORS AND PETTY JEALOUSIES. IF YOU REALLY THINK OHMAN, OR ANY OF HIS FARMER FRIENDS MADE THIS THING; WHY DON’T YOU SHOW US HOW EASY THAT IS BY DOING ONE YOURSELF??
    AND, ONCE YOU’VE SHOWN US PICS OF THAT, THEN YOU CAN TELL US HOW OHMAN GOT TO MAINE TO DO THREE STONES WITH EXACTLY THE SAME “MISTAKES” ON THEM!!
    IF YOU’RE REALLY INTO EXPOSING TECHNICALLY-BASED FAKES, WHY DON’T YOU GO AFTER THE FAKES SCREECHING AND CHATTERING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE???! MR. SCIENCE

  25. There is a button called “caps lock” on the keyboard. It typically has a little light on it. You have it on. Turn it off before you answer next time.

    I do not feel especially strongly about the issue. The fact is that the stone is a fake, and that’s all there is too it. The question is why *you* feel so strongly about it that you can not accept the truth of the matter. I know way more about runestones than the maker of the Kensington stone did, and would, if I had a couple of weeks, be able to make a far more convincing runestone. However, I’m pretty sure my neighbours would be annoyed if I was hammering away on a stone in my apartment, and my landlord would probably throw me out, and I honestly have no idea of how to get a stone up seven stories of stairs, so no thanks.

    The Spirit Pond rune stones do NOT have the same mistakes as the Kensington rune stone and are clearly not made by the same person. This is self evident to anyone with even half a brain. The Spirit Pond rune stones are made by somebody who knows more about rune stones, and has seen pictures of real ones. However, the person who made it doesn’t speak one word of ancient Scandinavian languages, and as a result, the text is complete and utter nonsense.

  26. C FUHRMANN permalink

    “OLAF”: I SEE BY YOUR REPLY THAT YOU KNOW HOW TO USE “CAPS” ALSO. I LIKE TO USE ‘EM, BECAUSE THEY CAN BE REALLY IRRITATING…RIGHT?
    YOU MUST BE QUITE THE SCIENTIST, AS EVIDENCED BY THE STATEMENT: “THE FACT IS THE STONE IS A FAKE, AND THAT’S ALL THERE IS TO IT.”
    BUT, THE PROOF IS ALWAYS IN THE PUDDING; SO- WHY NOT START WITH A SMALL FLAT STONE AND CHIP AWAY QUIETLY. TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS YOU NEED–NO NEED TO BE AS ELABORATE THE KENSINGTON OLAF. GO BURY IT SOMEWHERE AND THEN “DISCOVER” IT. YOU’LL FOOL THE WORLD, I’M SURE, ‘ CUZ YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAKE AND AUTHENTIC. THEN, WHEN YOU’VE BEEN ON ALL THE TALK SHOWS, YOU CAN SHOW US ALL HOW STUPID WE ARE. THINK YOU’RE UP TO IT, “OLAF”??
    BEFORE I CLOSE, I SUGGEST THAT YOU GO VISIT LANS AUX MEADOWS–KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN SETTLED BY VIKINGS IN THE 11TH CENTURY. I’VE BEEN THERE, AND I’M CONVINCED-BUT I’M NOT THE EXPERT THAT YOU ARE.. MAKE SURE YOU LOOK TO THE WEST, THO, SO YOU CAN SEE THE COAST OF LABRADOR . THEN ASK YOURSELF IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE, FOR VIKINGS WHO SAILED FROM GREENLAND, TO SAIL A SHIP 90 MILES , AND FROM THERE TO HUDSON’S BAY AND DOWN THE RIVERS TO MN. THEN TRY TO CONVINCE US THAT THAT’S A FAKE TOO!! AND..THAT REALLY IS ALL THERE IS TO IT, “OLAF”…

  27. So, your aim with writing here is to be irritating. I have to admit, you succeed, and that pretty much says it all about you. You can’t be knowledgeable, so you settle for irritating.

    No, I will not fool the world by making a fake rune stone. And neither did whoever made the Kenstington rune stone. He fooled *you* and without a doubt I could do the same. But that’s your problem, not mine.

    I *have* asked myself the question if Vikings could get to Kensington, and the answer is *no*. And the main reason for that is that it isn’t down the rivers. It’s *up* the rivers. Past Niagara falls. You can’t sail that way. Now, the Viking ships used on journeys through the rivers of eastern Europe were small and light, and you could drag them short ways. But you wouldn’t use those small ships for cross-atlantic journeys in the first place, and in the second place, viking ships where no longer used for sea journeys in 1362, you used another form of ship called “Cog”. They can NOT be dragged. So they would not have gotten past Niagra falls. And then, apparently, they have walked to Kensington from Niagra falls in 14 days. Ehhh, no. Not possible, sorry.

    There simply is nothing about this stone that makes sense except as a hoax.

  28. C FUHRMANN permalink

    I DON’T CARE IF YOU DELETE MY RESPONSE OR NOT! I’M NOT TRYING TO IMPRESS ANYBODY; AND YOU’RE DOING A FINE JOB OF EMBARASSING YOURSELF WITHOUT ANY HELP FROM ME!!

    NIAGRA FALLS?!! LOOK AT A MAP, FOR GOD’S SAKE! THE VIKES DIDN’T USE THE ST. LAWRENCE. THEY USED HUDSON’S BAY, CHURCHILL RIVER, WINNIPEG RIVER, LAKE WINNIPEG, AND THE RED RIVER OF THE NORTH–ALL OF WHICH FLOW NORTH, SO THEY DID GO UPSTREAM. LOOKING AT THE MAP AGAIN, YOU WILL NOTE A NUMBER OF RIVERS FLOWING INTO THE RED IN THE AREA OF THE “FAKE”.
    OH, ABOUT THOSE SHIPS THEY COULDN’T PORTAGE… THEY DRAGGED ‘EM ACROSS WHAT IS NOW TURKEY ON THEIR WAY TO CONSTANTANOPAL……. YOU’VE SIMPLY GOT TO READ MORE!! HAVE YOU BEEN TO LANS AUX MEADOWS YET???
    ARE YOU SURE YOU’RE NOT A MEMBER OF OBAMA’S CABINET??…..

  29. You can’t sail to Minnesota via Hudson bay either, you would get stuck at Lake Winnipeg, if not before. And no, they did not drag those ships across Turkey. Different types of ships, as mentioned. Your comments about Obamas cabinet also tells me that you in fact are crazy, not stupid, as I thought first.

  30. brian schoenrock permalink

    Just saw a good show ‘Holy Grail in America’ on TV, you cleared up what they did not make clear. The language on the stone is not of the 14th century, thank you, With that said, there are accounts/legends of Indians from the area (MN) having seen big white men with red hair,also Lewis/Clark. I think over the course of hundreds of years they would have traveled further through the waterways and just didn’t make a settlement, might be wishful thinking. Too much Columbus more Leif Ericson, Thanks again.

  31. More Indians, less Europeans, I say. *They* discovered America. :-)

  32. david bell permalink

    If you had reaearched the work of Walter Scott, the linguists he has worked with you would know your analsis is in correct. Several statements you have made about types of runes not being “invented” until after 1352 have been PROVED and accepted by linguists as actually been in use in 1362. Yet NO ONE knew this until the last 10 years or so. So somehow an uneducated man KNEW what linguists only discovered in the last ten years? WOW maybe some uneducated person will solve fusion reactors for us tommorrow! But lets not let reality get in the way of your analysis.
    PS The geologists analysis is ACCEPTED by ALL geologists that the stone was carved LONG before Olaf. It was presented and confirmed by the goeological society. The leaching on the stone has also been confirmed that it was buried in the teree roots for some time. So even IF your analysis wascorrect on other points the fact that you ignore THESE established facts show how biaded you are. Either YOU an admited amatuer are correct and the geological society is wrong…or THERY are right and YOU are wrong. HMMM…wonder which is more likely.

  33. Wolter F Scott hasn’t worked with any linguist, the runes in question did not exist before 1362, the geological analysis is not “accepted by all”, because Scott is the only one who has done any geological analysis of the stone at all, and for it to be generally accepted, you have to have other independent scientists confirming his findings by making their own analysis. That’s how science works.

    In short: None of the things you claim are established facts are established anywhere outside of Wolter F Scotts feverish imagination. His “research” is complete and utter fantasy.

  34. Steinar Skailand permalink

    The inscription on the Kensington “rune” stone has been solved by the Norwegian dr. philos. Kjell Aartun.
    The result was published in “Studien zur ugaritischen
    Lexikographie, Mit kultur- und religionsgeschichtlichen
    Parallelen”, in 2006, by the wellknown German publisher Harrassowitz Verlag.
    See pages 1409 and 1099-1122.
    The inscription consists of 50/50 etruscan language/Runes. I.e. the “youngest” of the american
    “rune” stones. It is approx. 3000 years old.

  35. Oh, wait, I looked him up on Wikipedia now. Apparently you weren’t joking. This crazy guy actually claims that the incriptions in *Scandinavia* isn’t in old Norse at all, but in a semitic language.

    That’s still hilarious, of course, but now unintentionally. That must be the most stupid theory so far. Never heard anything so immensely idiotic.

    For those who read Norwegian I can recommed this: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kjell_Aartun#Kontroversiell_forskning
    It’s the funniest thing I have read in months.

  36. Steinar Skailand permalink

    In less than 5 years the wole World and even north
    America will agree: “Dr. philos. Kjell Aartun is a clever guy. The SUPRIME.”

  37. Hehe. You are a funny guy.

  38. Steinar Skailand permalink

    Mail me your E-mail adress. Then I will furnish you with some interesting articles in Norwegian.

  39. Jeff permalink

    You obviously are an intelligent person. I have to say, though, that I feel that your intelligence and obvious prejudice is trumping your reasoning. To ascertain conclusions based on an amateur analysis of an outdated language seems to be an opinion of a rube, rather than a clear, unbiased observation. Clearly, I’m sure you would have taken into account that dictionaries and official sources of language, generally, are the “last to know”, so to speak. Especially, considering the majority of the people of the time were, for the most part, uneducated. So, I think it fair to assume that slang was quite possibly used by this uneducated scribe. And, I also would think that a person of your intelligence would have investigated beyond your own knowledge of the subject matter. By this, I mean, you would have read the investigation of the museum committee for the Minnesota Historical Society, and found all of the evidence supporting the genuineness of the “obvious fake” as you so boldly put it. Your opinion is incomplete and based on a insufficient knowledge of language history. Or perhaps it is just ignorance.

  40. There is no “amateur analysis”. There is no analysis. It doesn’t need one. That’s simply not 14th century Scandinavian, it’s as easy as that. What you are doing now is claiming that you wouldn’t see the difference between modern English and 14th century English, which I find ridiculous. Do you think you would even understand the Canterbury tales in original Middle English? I think not. And there is no slang in it. It is not a question of “last to know”. You Kensington people always seem to assume that the stone needs “interpretation”, or something. It doesn’t. It’s written in fully modern Swedish, in a slightly unusual 19th century rune-row. There are a bunch of misspellings, yes. But those misspellings does not magically turn the language into 14th century Scandinavian.

    However, it has of course also been analyzed by professional linguists, and they all, to a man, discard it as fake. The “linguists” claiming it isn’t a fake is in fact amateur Linguists who does not speak Swedish, neither modern nor 14th century.

    “By this, I mean, you would have read the investigation of the museum committee for the Minnesota Historical Society, and found all of the evidence supporting the genuineness of the “obvious fake” as you so boldly put it.”

    Yes, I have read it. There is no evidence supporting genuineness, except Wolters dubious geological examinations, which consists solely of him asserting that it must be old, which I admit doesn’t really convince me.

    “Your opinion is incomplete and based on a insufficient knowledge of language history. Or perhaps it is just ignorance.”

    That’s funny coming from someone who obviously is utterly ignorant about the topic.

  41. dan permalink

    I’ll ask the question here that I always ask when confronted with the mystery of the Kensington runestone. If you were part of a group of vikings in Minnesota in 1362 who decided to expend the time and trouble of carving a letter in stone, wouldn’t you absolutely include something that is glaringly absent from the Kensington stone, a signature of some sort? The fact that the kensington stone writer does not mention the name of the group’s leader or the king or other patron of the expedition is inexplicable, unless the stone is a a hoax, since signing a name would allow researchers to easily determine whether or not the person named ever existed, or if he did, whether there was any possibility he could have authorized or participated in a journey to the furthest west regions of “vinland.” A hoaxster would have had to expend a LOT of time researching who might have had the resources, inclination or ability to launch or such an endeavor. Since the hoaxster didn’t have acces to such information, he or she wisely decided to leave the stone unsigned.

  42. There’s no “mystery”. :) But yes, you are correct, the stone makes no sense. One theory is that it’s a marker of some sort, but it makes no sense as a marker. The text is a story, you don’t have that on markers. If it was a marker, some sort of land claim, it would have the name of the person laying the claim. It was *buried*, while markers are supposed to be seen, etc, etc.

    Swedish runestones where a sort of land claim. You made a stone to show “I am a bigwig in this area”, and you did it by commemorating somebody dead, and they always very carefully explained who was doing the commemorating, ie who payed for the stone, and therefore who put the stone there to show that he was somebody big in the area.

    But of course, having a land marker in minnesota makes no sense. Who is going to see it? The Indians? There is no land to lay claim to. There is no runestones laying claim to the land at L’anse aux meadows, because it’s not that kind of land claim you do. You don’t claim “I own this piece of land”. You claim “I’m the guy who pulls the strings around here”. Making a runestone to lay a claim of ownership of land makes no sense. Doing so with a stone that doesn’t make any such claims and doesn’t mention who made the claim is complete and utter nonsense, as everything else in connection with this stone.

    Which is why there is no mystery. The stone is wholly and utterly unmysterious. It’s a bad fake.

  43. Rita permalink

    with horses they could have travelled from the lake in under 5 days. Maybe they had an other settlement on the other side of the lake and sailed with their boats south.

    But it does not matter, because it is probably fake anyway.

  44. Yeah, nobody claims they had settlements there. :) That’s probably too crazy!

  45. Tom Thowsen permalink

    Hi Lennart – you are wasting your time on nonsense. All you are saying can one day come back to you. Remember this: the finding site has never been excavated. If the archeologist will do that in the future, you will probably sit in shame, because there might be evidence hidden in the ground – poor boy.

  46. You wanna bet?

  47. Tom Thowsen permalink

    I don’t bet. But I have good reasons to believe that you are wrong. For the first, the location of KRS is understandable. Its location is westwards of Vinland, and there is a natural seaway heading to it. Niagara Falls was no problem; they could have used Cavalier de La Salles method, as he did 7th August in 1679, just build their ships on Lake Erie. Then head further to Lake Superior, and further on the small rivers they used canoes. Don’t forget that my ancestors were among the best river travelers in the whole history. They have proven how fare they could reach eastwards. For the second, they have the same reason as Columbus; they were probably seeking for a seaway to the Far East. Medial documents tell us that people believed the Bay of St Lawrence was pathway to the great ocean. This believes had even the French explorer. The third, the location of the stone is an island if the water level is just about a meter higher. And why should a hoaxer burry the stone? – Not only the rune stone, but even a whetstone witch only occurs on the east coast of US. And the rune stone is unfinished, just look at its shape. It has been carved to fit in a pedestal. So, where is the pedestal? It could still be there hidden in the ground. Everything was naturally covered by nature during 500 years. Well, my point is that the finding site should be excavated. So, don’t feel secure. My advice to you, Lennart: be aware of what you saying.

  48. “Its location is westwards of Vinland”

    So?

    “and there is a natural seaway heading to it.”

    No there isn’t. It’s very far away from any navigatable water.

    “Niagara Falls was no problem; they could have used Cavalier de La Salles method, as he did 7th August in 1679, just build their ships on Lake Erie.”

    Which means that they must have camped there for a year. And Niagara falls is not the only fall on the way to the Atlantic. How many ships did they build?

    “Then head further to Lake Superior, and further on the small rivers they used canoes.”

    Canoes? That did not exist in medieval Scandinavian culture, afaik.

    “Don’t forget that my ancestors were among the best river travelers in the whole history.”

    Ah, and there is the rub. You want this to be true, to feel proud of your ancestry. Well, I want it to be true to. The difference is that I realize that it isn’t, while you prefer your dreams before reality. don’t you have anything more sensible to make you proud of yourself except imaginary travels by people who weren’t *actually* your ancestors, but just happened to live in the same geographical part of the world.

    “They have proven how fare they could reach eastwards.”

    And westwards.

    “For the second, they have the same reason as Columbus; they were probably seeking for a seaway to the Far East.”

    What utter nonsense.

    “Medial documents tell us that people believed the Bay of St Lawrence was pathway to the great ocean. This believes had even the French explorer. The third, the location of the stone is an island if the water level is just about a meter higher.”

    Not true in any reasonable sense, based on a misunderstanding of what “water level” means. To flood the area and make the hill into an island you would have to raise the sea level 1400 feet. Did the vikings make the stone during Noahs flood or something?

    “And why should a hoaxer burry the stone?”

    How can he discover it, if it wasn’t hidden? A hoaxer has no choice, he *must* hide it so he then can “discover” it.

    However, if it was genuine it would *not* be hidden.

    ” – Not only the rune stone, but even a whetstone witch only occurs on the east coast of US.”

    There was no whetstone found in conjunction with the rune stone. Öhman claimed to have found a whetstone “close by”.

    “And the rune stone is unfinished, just look at its shape.”

    No, it’s not unfinished. It’s made by somebody who knows nothing about how to make runestones. Also, the runes go on *last*. A runestone with runes can not be “unfinished”, as the finishing touch is adding the runes. Well, and then paining, obviously, but this stone has no paint.

    “It has been carved to fit in a pedestal.”

    Yes. And genuine runestones do not have pedestals.

    “So, where is the pedestal? It could still be there hidden in the ground.”

    Nonsense.

    “Everything was naturally covered by nature during 500 years.”

    There is no process that can cover a standing stone on the top of a hill in 500 years. Impossible. It was intentionally hidden, which you never ever do with runestones, as the whole purpose of them is to be seen.

    “Well, my point is that the finding site should be excavated.”

    Well, since you are such a coward that you refuse to put something behind your grand words, I’ll tell you now: It has been. It was excavated already in 1899. The archaeologists found nothing, because there was nothing to find.

    “So, don’t feel secure. My advice to you, Lennart: be aware of what you saying.”

    I am extremely aware of what I’m saying, and I *am* secure. Let me explain to you how secure I am.

    If somebody came up to you with a statue that looked like it was made by a ten year old with the carving of hieroglyphs, that when transliterated turned out not to be Egyptian, but english, saying “I am the god Osiris and I am really, really cool” would you think it possibly could be a genuine egyptian artefact?

    No you wouldn’t. And that is exactly how bad the Kensington runestone is. It’s made by somebody who seems to never have seen a runstone in his life, inscribed in 18th century Scandinavian, telling a silly story that sounds like a 8 year old wrote it. The stone is a obvious bad fake.

  49. Tom Thowsen permalink

    “Its location is westwards of Vinland”
    So?
    My answer: It’s according to the rune text.

    “and there is a natural seaway heading to it.”
    No there isn’t. It’s very far away from any navigatable water.
    My answer: Yes there is. You better begin to do your history lesson before you talk. Outside Montreal you find “Lachine Rapids” This name comes from the dream of the first French explorers, they thought this waterway lead to China.

    “Niagara Falls was no problem; they could have used Cavalier de La Salles method, as he did 7th August in 1679, just build their ships on Lake Erie.”
    Which means that they must have camped there for a year. And Niagara falls is not the only fall on the way to the Atlantic. How many ships did they build?
    My answer: The Norwegian explorer, Paul Knutsson, was traveling since 1356. He had six years of preparation before the journey in 1362. And Lachine Rapids was a small problem, they did as usual – they pull their ships over land. This was a normal procedure.

    “Then head further to Lake Superior, and further on the small rivers they used canoes.”
    Canoes? That did not exist in medieval Scandinavian culture, afaik.
    My answer: Right, but wrong. They did of course cooperate with the natives.

    “Don’t forget that my ancestors were among the best river travelers in the whole history.”
    Ah, and there is the rub. You want this to be true, to feel proud of your ancestry. Well, I want it to be true to. The difference is that I realize that it isn’t, while you prefer your dreams before reality. don’t you have anything more sensible to make you proud of yourself except imaginary travels by people who weren’t *actually* your ancestors, but just happened to live in the same geographical part of the world.
    My answer: OK. Ancestors or ancestors… Lennart – please…

    “They have proven how fare they could reach eastwards.”
    And westwards.
    My answer: Yes – To Minnesota. It’s plausible: The proof might be carved in stone.

    “For the second, they have the same reason as Columbus; they were probably seeking for a seaway to the Far East.”
    What utter nonsense.
    My answer: “nonsense” is your word. I build my claims on the historic fact that most of the explorer that came up along the American waterways were looking for path to China. Why not the Scandinavians? Why not in 1362? They knew about America’s existence since year 1000. Did the Scandinavians were less able to manage this than other nations?

    “Medial documents tell us that people believed the Bay of St Lawrence was pathway to the great ocean. This believes had even the French explorer. The third, the location of the stone is an island if the water level is just about a meter higher.”
    Not true in any reasonable sense, based on a misunderstanding of what “water level” means. To flood the area and make the hill into an island you would have to raise the sea level 1400 feet. Did the vikings make the stone during Noahs flood or something?
    My answer: Lennart – your naughty boy… Maybe I was a little bit clumsy. I talk about the small lake, next to Olof Ohmans farm. If the water level in this lake is raised with just one meter, the finding site would be an island. So, it proof that under relatively extreme weather conditions this could be an island. Could Ohman know that?

    “And why should a hoaxer burry the stone?”
    How can he discover it, if it wasn’t hidden? A hoaxer has no choice, he *must* hide it so he then can “discover” it.
    My answer: A hoxer had a choice. He would surely make the hoax visible, not hide it in the wilderness.

    However, if it was genuine it would *not* be hidden.
    My answer: As I told you, the rune stone was never finished. That’s the reason why it laid flat when discovered.

    ” – Not only the rune stone, but even a whetstone witch only occurs on the east coast of US.”
    There was no whetstone found in conjunction with the rune stone. Öhman claimed to have found a whetstone “close by”.
    My answer: The whetstone was found in the same hole under a small excavation in 1899. There where newer a real full-scale exaction.

    “And the rune stone is unfinished, just look at its shape.”
    No, it’s not unfinished. It’s made by somebody who knows nothing about how to make runestones. Also, the runes go on *last*. A runestone with runes can not be “unfinished”, as the finishing touch is adding the runes. Well, and then paining, obviously, but this stone has no paint.
    My answer: Well, you better take a closer look. On the lower areas: Three of the sides are carved beveled. The fourth side is nearly untouched.
    “It has been carved to fit in a pedestal.”
    Yes. And genuine runestones do not have pedestals.
    My answer: You’re right. This is not a normal runestone. This is a very small runestone. It needed height to be visible. KRS is only 76 centimeters high.

    “So, where is the pedestal? It could still be there hidden in the ground.”
    Nonsense.
    My answer: “nonsense” is your word. I am not very impressed of you, Lennart.

    “Everything was naturally covered by nature during 500 years.”
    There is no process that can cover a standing stone on the top of a hill in 500 years. Impossible. It was intentionally hidden, which you never ever do with runestones, as the whole purpose of them is to be seen.
    My answer: As I told you. The stone was never finished.

    “Well, my point is that the finding site should be excavated.”
    Well, since you are such a coward that you refuse to put something behind your grand words, I’ll tell you now: It has been. It was excavated already in 1899. The archaeologists found nothing, because there was nothing to find.
    My answer: Why did the stonemasons leave their sharpening tool? Was they interrupted? And isn’t it odd, this course-grained whetstone exist only at the east coast of USA – Grafton County, New Hampshire. So, how did it get to Minnesota? Could this finding support the route on the Great Lakes? It could hardly have been planted there by Olof Ohman and Nils Flaten, the neighbor when they on the spring in 1899 dug a seven feet wide and deep hole under the site of Kensington Runestone to look for artifacts or bodies. Nothing was found except this antique whetstone. It was so worn, that it soon broke into pieces when handled.
    But my point is: a seven feet wide hole is not a full-scale excavation.
    “So, don’t feel secure.
    My advice to you, Lennart: be aware of what you saying.”
    I am extremely aware of what I’m saying, and I *am* secure. Let me explain to you how secure I am.
    If somebody came up to you with a statue that looked like it was made by a ten year old with the carving of hieroglyphs, that when transliterated turned out not to be Egyptian, but english, saying “I am the god Osiris and I am really, really cool” would you think it possibly could be a genuine egyptian artefact?
    No you wouldn’t. And that is exactly how bad the Kensington runestone is. It’s made by somebody who seems to never have seen a runstone in his life, inscribed in 18th century Scandinavian, telling a silly story that sounds like a 8 year old wrote it. The stone is an obvious bad fake.
    My answer: Poor Lennart. I fell sorry for you. I really do

  50. It’s according to the rune text.

    Of course. Do you think a fake stone would contradict it’s location? That would be amazingly stupid.

    Outside Montreal you find “Lachine Rapids”

    And so? This is not Montreal, it’s the middle of Minnesota. There is no navigatable water anywhere near.

    They did of course cooperate with the natives.

    Amazing speculation. Especially since the stone actually implies an attack by the natives.

    The Norwegian explorer, Paul Knutsson

    The Norse had no concept of exploring. Paul Knutsson was not an explorer, he was a lawman, and ordered to go to Greenland, apparently to preserve Christianity (probably meaning Norwegian law and culture in this case). There is no proof he ever went, and you are not then saying that he intentionally broke his promise to the king, and instead of doing what he was supposed to, went on a crazy non-sensical expedition to Minnesota. Why, I ask you? Why on earth would he do that?

    Yes – To Minnesota. It’s plausible: The proof might be carved in stone.

    Plausibility has nothing to do with it. Yeah, maybe they *could* have gone to Minnesota. That’s not the point. The discussion is if the Kensington stone is genuine or not, which it clearly and obviously is not.

    I build my claims on the historic fact that most of the explorer that came up along the American waterways were looking for path to China. Why not the Scandinavians?

    Mostly because they hardly had heard of it, and definitely was not trading with it. Hence they had no interest in looking for a path to China. Columbus had. But he still had big troubles getting funding. Why? Because everybody knew he was wrong. You couldn’t go to India that way, it was too far. Geez, man, read some high school level history, for your own sake.

    They knew about America’s existence since year 1000

    So why the hell would they then go looking for Asia that way? Not only did they know it wasn’t there through pure geography, they knew there was a big wasteland full of “Skraelingar” who was not friendly. They were very well aware that there was nothing there for them.

    I talk about the small lake, next to Olof Ohmans farm. If the water level in this lake is raised with just one meter, the finding site would be an island.

    But the only way to do that is to raise the sea level 1200 feet. Because otherwise the water will flow out! The area is very flat, you can not raise the water level of that lake one meter, because that would flood most of Minnesota!

    So, it proof that under relatively extreme weather conditions this could be an island.

    No it is not. It couldn’t. But maybe Öhman did the same mistake you did when you thought about water levels? Also, Öhman was Swedish. In Sweden we have an interesting phenomenon: Most of the land is rapidly rising. Öhman would likely have been very well aware that in Sweden, what was an island by the coast 500 years ago could be on solid land now. But this is not how things work in Minnesota. But he couldn’t know that.

    My answer: A hoxer had a choice. He would surely make the hoax visible, not hide it in the wilderness.

    Wilderness? It was on his farm! And yes, he would make it visible, by *discovering it*. If Öhman would have just put the stone up, people would have pointed out that the stone wasn’t there last week. He therefore must dig it up. He had no choice.

    As I told you, the rune stone was never finished.
    The runes is the last thing to go on. Hence, it’s finished. I explained this to you before. What did you not understand? Is this too complicated?

    The whetstone was found in the same hole under a small excavation in 1899.

    Reference needed.

    This is a very small runestone.

    Small runestones are not unheard of. And they also do not have pedestals. Is this hard to understand? Am I unclear?

    Why did the stonemasons leave their sharpening tool?

    They didn’t. And they would not have in any case, they would have made bloody sure to take their tools with them. And last of all: stonemasons don’t use whetstones. When you cut rock, you don’t need knives sharpened. And if they made the stone in place, where is all the rubble that would have been created?

    The stone was never finished.

    It was finished, and it doesn’t matter, the stone would not have ended up far underground even if it was not finished.

    a seven feet wide hole is not a full-scale excavation.

    Sure it is. They only needed to excavate a small area for this small stone.

    You come up with the most fantastical nonsense in your effort to tell yourself that your ancestors discovered Minnesota. It’s pretty damn silly, to be honest. The fact is that the stone is written in moderns Swedish (with some English words thrown in), done by somebody who knows very little about rune stones or runes. It’s a bad fake, that could have been done by a ten-year old. The stone CAN NOT be genuine. It’s simply impossible. I’m sorry the truth hurts, but that’s the fact. And if you knew *anything* about Norse culture history or runes, you would know that.

    So anyway, now your theory is that Paul Knutson in six years travelled first to Greenland, then made a large expedition, with no reason whatsoever and without actually telling anyone, and went and became friendly with the indians and learned their language, and then sailed up a river, building a new ship (which takes a long time) after every waterfall, and finally ending up in Minnesota, at the only time in Hostory when all of Minnesota has been flooded, and then built a time machine, went into the future and found a rune row from the 19th century, and talked to some modern people, learned some 19th century Swedish, and then went back in time, and wrote a silly little essay on a stone.

    Yeah, THAT makes sense. Especially if you compare it to my theory: That the 19th century rune row and 19th century language is explained by the stone being made in (GASP!) the 19th century.

  51. Tom Thowsen permalink

    Ok, Lennart. You just see what you want to see. You have decided what you will believe. The stone CAN NOT be genuine, you say. But why do you bother arguing, if you are so shore? I can tell you why I bother: it’s because there are doubts. There are more to investigate. There are still unsolved questions. Innocent people have been grilled in the electric chair, only because the so called experts refused to do they job properly. This kind of failures happens all the time on many arenas around the world. And the consequences are horrible, and it’s totally unfair. In this case – the Kensington Runestone – the Ohman family could have been victims of misjudgment as well. Don’t you forget that? For you it’s just a funny game. For them it’s a shame. When I say: The whetstone was found in the same hole under a small excavation in 1899. You directly show your lack of knowledge, and say: “Reference needed.”
    My answer: Visit the museum were the whetstone is displayed; it’s written there – black on white.

  52. No, I don’t see what I want to see. As mentioned I *want* the Kensington rune stone to be genuine. But I see that it is not.

    But why do you bother arguing, if you are so shore?

    That’s a very strange question.

    There are more to investigate. There are still unsolved questions.

    Of course. This is true about everything. But the question “is it genuine?” is a solved question.

    This kind of failures happens all the time on many arenas around the world.

    What a pathetic straw you clasp after. This is not a question of refusing to do their job. The experts *have* done their job, and they all agree: The stone is without any doubt an obvious bad fake.

    Visit the museum were the whetstone is displayed; it’s written there – black on white.

    Aha. And what museum is this? Now please give me a reference to the publication talking about this excavation, and tell me where in it it says they found the whetstone there.

    And again: None if what you say here changes anything. The fact still is that that stone is made with modern tools, written in modern Swedish (with some English) in a modern rune row. And no matter of your ridiculous excuses changes this.

    No, the rune stone CAN NOT be genuine, any more than a Barbie-doll can be a roman statue. It’s an *obvious* fake for any one who either knows Swedish or history or runes.

  53. Tom Thowsen permalink

    Lennart – listen: I don’t want to repeat my self. So I will only answer your question on the whetstone:
    The whetstone is displayed at the Runestone museum in Alexandria, Minnesota, USA. On the paper screen behind it this information is given: “In 1899 Olof Ohman and Nils Flaten, the neighbor, dug a seven feet wide and deep hole under the site of Kensington Runestone to look for artifacts or bodies. Nothing was found except this antique whetstone. It was so worn, that it soon broke into pieces when handled. – In the United States this course-grained whetstone such as this are found chiefly in Grafton County, New Hampshire.”

  54. You see, when you claimed it was found in the 1899 excavation I mentioned (which wasn’t done by Öhman), I asked for sources, because everyone else claims that it came from Öhman. And now it turns out you were wrong and everyone else right: Öhman claimed to have found it.

    Every argument you have falls apart on inspection. And you completely ignore all facts that contradict you. The facts still is, and no talk about whetstone or speculation about 14th expeditions from Norway can change this, that the stone is inscribed in 19th century language with 19th century runes.

    You still have not explained how that would be possible in the 14th century.

  55. And on your question on why I bother arguing, you can read this:

    http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/04/why-speak-truth.html

  56. Tom Thowsen permalink

    Sorry, Lennart, but you got it all wrong. Just wait and see. Time will show. And then you will be glad, because you said: “I love the Kensington Runestone” Isn’t it lovely? – Have a nice day ;-)

  57. OK, when? How? What kind of evidence do you expect to come up? The stone is clearly an 18th century artefact. How can something from the 18th century be made in the 14the century? Time machines?

    And how much to you want to bet? If you are so sure, then you would reasonably be willing to bet on it, because then it’s not a risk, right?

  58. Tom Thowsen permalink

    I dont bet. Here we talk about knowledge. Only an archeological dig at the finding site can solve this enigma. Please notice this: Lingvists Henrik Williams and Tryggve Skold blieves that Olof Ohman was innocent. So, dont call Ohman a hoaxer.

  59. Both Tryggve Sköld and Henrik Williams agree the the stone is a hoax. If they blame it on Öhman or not is rather irrelevant. There is of course the possibility that he wasn’t the hoaxer, but that he was hoaxed, but I find that extremely unlikely.

    And while I talk about knowledge, while you clasp to dreams as your last pathetic straws.

    The knowledge we have is the following: This stone is made with 19th century runes in 19th century Swedish. It is hence barring the use of time machines, impossible that this stone is from the 14th century.

    That’s what we *know*. So there is no enigma to solve.

    You however dream that the stone is from the 14th century, because then you can pretend that your ancestors discovered Minnesota. But that’s just a silly dream, like when you dream about what to do with the money when you win the lottery. You seem to be mistaking this dream about lottery winnings for reality.

    You still refuse to even acknowledge the basic facts: The stone was obviously and without any doubt made in the 19th century. So what’s the enigma to solve, really?

  60. Tom Thowsen permalink

    No! It’s not irrelevant that Tryggve Skold and Henrik Williams feel uncomfortable with blame it on Ohman, because this shows clearly that they are afraid to get innocent blood on their hands. They don’t dare. The consequences of other linguist’s mistakes have already damaged this family’s reputation. It’s easier to blame it on Santa Claus or Batman – Or some mysterious mister X. Not Ohman. These scholars just believe. They don’t know for shore. Read what they say. And you have a point: It’s still unlikely that there could be another hoaxer. Ergo: The Kensington Runstone is most likely a genuine artifact. Let’s investigate more on it!

  61. What irrelevant utter nonsense. No, Tom, these scholars know. for sure. *YOU* believe in the stone as one would believe in Santa Claus. The scholars actually know what they are talking about.

    And yet again you simply refuse to acknowledge any arguments I make. It’s like you are even unable to read them. Like your deluded brain are completely incapable of even seeing something that doesn’t fit with your delusions.

    So a question to you now: Do you see the following sentence:

    The inscription is done in a 19th century Scandinavian language with 19th century runes.

    Did you see that sentence? Or is it invisible to you?

  62. Tom Thowsen permalink

    Take it easy, Lennart. Don’t be upset. I see you wrote the following sentence: “The inscription is done in a 19th century Scandinavian language with 19th century runes.” When did you become the one and only truth? – A living answer? Don’t be ridiculous. You got stuck in a one eyed look on the issue. This runestone needs a broader investigation. Not only a judgment based on runes. A full-scale archeological investigation is needed. That’s the only way to solve this enigma. Please, open your other eye too.

  63. “When did you become the one and only truth?”
    You are now talking complete nonsense. That sentence doesn’t even make sense. I am not truth, and that statement is meaningless in any case.

    So you saw the sentence. Why have you so far ignored it? Do you understand the sentence, or is something unclear?

    “Not only a judgment based on runes.”

    No, the runes are proof in themselves. That’s 19th century runes and 19th century language. This means it’s impossible for the stone to be made in the 14th century. The runes and the language are by themselves clear proof that the stone is made in the 19th century. Possibly late 18th, but probably not.

    “That’s the only way to solve this enigma.”

    What enigma?

  64. Tom Thowsen permalink

    Lennart – don’t be nervous. Take it easy. As I said before: This runestone needs a broader investigation. A full-scale archeological investigation is needed. Until then, we come no further in our discussion. Wait and see. Relax.

  65. Your powers of projection are great. Trust me I’m not nervous. As I said: How much do you want to bet? I’m completely relaxed and as certain as it is possible to be: The stone is a hoax.

    And I notice you didn’t answer my questions. When you are up against facts and reality you just pretend it isn’t there. You have shown that you are capable of reading what I write. So stop pretending you don’t see it.

    The questions you must answer are:

    1. Why have you so far ignored the main argument?
    2. Do you understand the sentence in question, or is something unclear?
    3. What enigma?

  66. Tom Thowsen permalink

    1. Why have you so far ignored the main argument?

    My answer: Ok. I am fully aware of your main argument: It’s based on the Larsson Runes. But nobody knows how old these runes actually are. They could very well have been in use in the tailor association that king Magnus Eriksson founded in the middle of the 14th century. This tailor association was closed at the first half of 19th century. Edward Larsson was a tailor. So, the fact that these runes where unknown to the linguists until 2004, shows how limited their knowledge actually are. They are no almighty Gods. They are humans. They can be wrong.

    2. Do you understand the sentence in question, or is something unclear?

    My anwer: No. I see it perfectly clear. And you got my answer: You have not come up with any compelling evidence.

    3. What enigma?

    My answer: Please, don’t be foolish. There are still many questions to be answered here. I repeat my message: We need an excavation. This is a normal archeological procedure. Nobody cant be fully shore of anything before that’s is done.

  67. 1a. It’s not only the Larsson runes. Even before that paper surfaced, it was well known that the runes were dalecarlian, and hence *not* medieval. i explain about the umlauts in my blog post.

    1b. And yes, we know *very* well how old those runes are. Runes are not a mystery, they are well documented, and we know how medieval runes looks like, and we know that for example, they do *not* have the character Ö, which is a latin alphabet character that is *post medieval*.

    1c. Tailors do not have separate runes from the rest of society anymore than they have separate alphabets.

    1d. Most of the runes were not unknown. However, there was no documentation of a complete rune row that matched that well. You can ignore Larssons rune row completely, and it’s still obviously a post medieval runes, and hence the stone is a hoax.

    2. Yes, I finally got your answer. Thank you. It took a long time. And I have now explained why you are wrong.

    3. I notice you didn’t answer this question. Again: What enigma? Yes, an archaeological excavation is normal procedure in archeology. But this is not archeology. The stone is ab obvious, proven hoax. There is nothing to dig, and even if there had been it would have been destroyed in the digging done a 100 years ago.

  68. Tom Thowsen permalink

    What enigma? You asked. OK. When you have closed your eyes there is nothing to see. Further I find your answers not convincing. You are clearly afraid of digging. Professor Henrik Williams said this to the Swedish newspaper DN in 2003: “If they, with natural scientifically methods, can proof that the stone must have been laying in the soil in 100 years or more – yes then we must conclude that it is as old as they claims, no other option do not exist.” In 2007 this fact was clear. Both the engineering and geological communities have embraced the geologist Scott Wolters work and it culminated in an ACEC Grand Award in 2007 for the KRS research. The root of the problem is the archaeologists, linguists, historians, and anthropologists do not receive formal training in the Scientific Method. This is why they were unable to solve the problem. If they understood and followed proper method they would have realized the evidence wasn’t there to draw ANY conclusion until recently. But I challenge them on their own field. Use your strongest weapon: an excavation on the finding site. But nobody dare. You are afraid. There could be unpleasant evidence staring you right in the eyes. It could be a huge scandal. 112 years of mistakes. Many great scholars would fall down from their high, glorious pedestals of honor. What a shame that would be. Just wait and see.

  69. I know you don’t find my answers convincing, because you ignore all facts that contradict your preconceptions. And sometimes you seem to invent your own thing.

    ACEC Grand award 2007, you say? Here you can find the grand award winners for 2007: http://www.acec.org/publications/lastword2007/lw051707.htm Notice the complete lack of mention of either Scott Wolter or The Kensington runestone.

    Did you hallucinate this nonsense yourself or did you get tricked? The fact is that he got n award from ACEC in Minnesota (not the country-wide organization) for something that had absolutely nothing to do with the Kensington runestone whatsoever, namely a homicide investigation. And that was in 2005. His research on the KRS is not embraced at all, in fact it’s not even published in a scientific journal, so there is nothing for the scientific community to embrace. It’s in practice only Scott F Wolter saying “The stone is old because I say so”.

    “The root of the problem is the archaeologists, linguists, historians, and anthropologists do not receive formal training in the Scientific Method.”

    This is complete and utter bullshit. You are now inventing crap right and left to save your hope in the authenticity of the stone. It won’t work.

    “Just wait and see.”

    How much do you want to bet? Why don’t you pay for an excavation? If they find proof that the stone is genuine, I promise I’ll pay you back double. Nobody does an excavation, because they cost money, takes time, and because the stone is an OBVIOUS FAKE. There is nothing to find. I *know* so.

  70. Tom Thowsen permalink

    Test. I have problem with the text.

  71. Tom Thowsen permalink

    OK, Lennart. If you are a gambler, try betsson. I don`t. Neither do I hallucinate. Nor do I have money for an excavation. Sorry, but your knowledge is very limited. American Petrographic Services, Inc: Forensic Runestone Research, stands on page 12 in ACEC Grand Adward 2007 galaprogram pdf.

  72. That’s not the Grand Award, maybe you should learn to read? It doesn’t say what they got the award for, we don’t know what the criteria is, etc, etc. You don’t know how science works. Show me where Scott Wolters research is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and we’ll talk.

    Betfair doesn’t have bets on the Kensington Runestone. Can you guess why? Because nobody, not even you, are stupid or crazy enough to bet on impossibilities. Yes impossibilities. It’s just as impossible that the stone is genuine, as it is impossible that Tutankamon’s mummy one day comes to life, stands up and walks way.

    And that’s why you don’t want to bet. Not 1 dollar, not 10 dollars not 10.000 dollars. Because there is a part of your brain that knows very well that you are deluding yourself.

  73. Steinar Skailand permalink

    Tom Towsen
    Send me your Email address.
    Then you will receive the text on 4 significant
    American rune stones in “Best English”.

  74. Lennart Regebro permalink

    Note: “Best English” means incomprehensible and incoherent rambles. It’s well worth reading, for pure entertainment value. Apparently the american runestones (and even the Swedish ones, don’t you know) weren’t made by Vikings, ohno they are several thousant years older, and made by minoans.

    HA!

  75. Sivert Flottum permalink

    This blog is not getting too interesting when kicking the player instead of the ball!
    I’ve followed the discussion pro ond con the auth. of the stone for 30 years. I find it incredible that a group of scand. should have penetrated into midwest 650 ago. But who can possibly be the hoaxer(s)? Not Ohman, that is out of the question – no way! Apart from other arguments agains this, it would have been impossible in that close community to keep this secret. The stone was found entangled in the roots of a tree 40 years old. There were quite a few witnesses to that. Who could have done this prank 40 years earlyer?
    Alfred Monge has put forward a solution to the numerous odd rune and word forms which he takes for clues in a cryptopuzzle. I have in vain tryed to pursuate some ph.d. student to re-examine his work.
    May be someone reading this will pick up the glove?

  76. First of all, a hoax involving only a few hoaxer is extremely easy to keep secret. All that’s needed is that the hoaxers don’t tell anyone. Secondly, Frank Walter Gran, a son of one of Öhmans neighbors, said that his father had helped Öhman make it. Obviously that’s not evidence, but it’s a pretty big hint. ;)

    But I’m not sure who made the stone, and that’s also not the point of this article. The point is that the stone can not possibly be genuine. It’s simply impossible. So it *is* a hoax. Who made it is secondary, but I see no reason why Öhman could not have done it.

  77. It seems easy to criticise, now that digs have proven we should be lloking ofr icelandic ruins………Important notes to add: 1)The note that the stone delivered is actually quite clear….somone had acess to a iclandic version of a very old scandinavian language, theis is a difficul language which mutates wildly as there weren’t enough people on Iceland to make paper or have a school. You also have that common practice of religions burning down libraries of their enemys in europe. 2) THANKS FOR THE “O”. As most people did not know ho to read or write the icelandics set up a system of “light houses”. Any costal rocky outcropping would have a series of torches imbedded into the rock face. Benieth it you will find the accented “o” (Watering Station)…I assume if you dug into that hill you would find a spring. 3) What the stone say is: written language was introduced by a group of people that had real estate laws and made cloth. And it says that no matter how you read it.

  78. Wow. Not one thing of what you say above is correct. It’s kinda impressive.

  79. Steinar Skailand permalink

    Dr. philos. Kjell Aartun (The eminent Norwegian) has written a new book about old languages.
    It is printed by the German publisher “Harrassowitz Verlag”.
    The language is German.
    The title is “Mehrsprachige altsemitische Kultschriften”.
    That book ought to convince every doubtful.
    ISBN:978-3-447-06574-0. Price: 98,00 Euro.

  80. Kjell Artun’s eminence is mainly in succeeding to see semitic inscriptions wherever he looks. His claim that early Scandinavian runestones are in fact not written in the Germanic language spoken at that time in Scandinavia, but in some sort of semitic language, is certainly eminently idiotic.

  81. Steinar Skailand permalink

    Are you shure that the people in this region ” The Orkneys, south cost of Norway, south coast of
    Sweden and the island Gotland” really spoke a Germanic language 4000 years ago?
    A Germanic language author (4000 years ago) is not supposed to use Minoan hieroglyphs.

  82. It’s not 4000 years ago, it’s 1000-2000 years ago, and yes, I’m sure they spoke Germanic then. But you are right, they are not supposed to use Minoan hieroglyphs; which is why they were using runes. Runes are not Minoan, but a clear derivation of an alphabet, either a Greek, Etruscan or Italian alphabet. They have zero resemblance to either Linear A or Linear B, and is hence not Minoan in any way, shape or form.

  83. Revist http://www.thekensingtonrunestone.com , it has been updated. It’s not about the runestone it is about spherical geometry. I suppose that is fake also.

  84. “Fake” is the wrong word, because it implies intentionally fabricating something. Insanity is not intentional.

  85. Dan Maris permalink

    My take on the KRS is this:

    If you were a farmer of late 19th century farmer of Scandinavian extraction would you have come up with this text if you were perpetrating a hoax of this type?

    It seems a very sophisticated sort of text for a hoax – including the AVM.

    I cannot believe a farmer would have come up with the precise text themselves. Much more likely would have been something along the lines of “I XXXX of Greenland claim this land” or some such.

    It is really the fact that the Runestone’s text seems rather forlorn and unemphatic that makes me feel it might be genuine – odd but genuine.

    Also, farmers at that time would have been rooting up trees, so the method of discovery is entirely plausible.

    I think also when you get into the analysis of the language, there are far more ambiguities in the judgements of linguists.

    The idea that the runestone was left unfinished makes a lot of sense.

  86. I’m not a late 19th century farmer, and If I would have been, I would not have been me. So you are really asking two questions.

    1. Would *I* have come up with that text? No. That text is idiotic, and written by somebody who knows nothing of either medieval Scandinavian language or rune stones. I’m not an expert in the topic, but I would still come up with something that was way better than that, and much less moronic than that text.

    2. Would a late 19th century farmer have been able to come up with a text like that? Yes, without a doubt.

    You claim that the text seems very sophisticated. I don’t know how you could reach that conclusion. There is nothing sophisticated about it, The text bears no resemblance to 14the century Swedish or Norwegian, the runes are 19th century runes, the text content is idiotic. There is absolutely nothing sophisticated about it. IN fact, the text sounds a bit like it’s a story written by a child.

    “Much more likely would have been something along the lines of “I XXXX of Greenland claim this land”” – No, that would have been much more likely text on a *real* runestone. Especially since the KRS nutjobs claim that the stone is a stone to claim land. If it had been, that’s what it would have said.

    No, the finding isn’t plausible. Not because he didn’t uproot trees, I’m sure he put the stone there to be “discovered” because he needed to uproot that tree anyway. It’s implausible because the stone would never have ended up there in the first place. It is to my knowledge the only runestone ever to be found under a tree. It means that the people who made the stone, after they made it *buried* it. Why!? That’s not why you make runestones! Sure, it could have fallen over, and then it would have slowly been covered with moss and then grass, and then earth, but in 500 years it would only have been covered by a thin layer of soil, not found beneath a big tree. That’s very implausible. Especially since it was on a hill, soil on the top of the hill doesn’t build up, it *erodes*. A runestone placed on the top of the hill, but fallen over, would 500 years later only be covered in moss, not with a meter of soil and a tree on top. It just doesn’t happen.

    No, linguists are not “far more ambiguous”. They note inconsistencies etc, but every single linguist knowledgeable in medieval Swedish that has looked at it has said that the stone is a hoax. Sorry. No expert supports the case that it could be genuine. Not a single one.

    The stone is clearly not unfinished. That idea, which I haven’t heard before, has no merit whatsoever. I have no idea why you would think that makes a lot of sense. The last thing you do on a runestone is carve the runes. The runes are carved. There is no indication that more runes are to be carved. There are no half-finished inscriptions. The only thing that would be “missing” is the rune carvers name, which was common to add, although not all stones have it.

  87. Thanks history channel permalink

    Thanks History Channel!
    Scott Wolter’s whoring can only add to your your “ancient alien” reputation.

  88. Paul Stewart permalink

    Lennart- you are both right and wrong. The stone is not real, but to say it was made as a hoax is also incorrect. There is a third option that everyone has overlooked- that its neither real nor a hoax but made for another purpose entirely. And yes, the Spirit Pond stones are also not real, but they in fact, WERE made by the same person..for exactly the same reasons. The reason no one has solved them- is that they aren’t runestones…they merely look like them….and because of that. no one has realized that there is anything to solve. All will be revealed shortly

  89. It is clearly fake. If it is a hoax or not depends on the intentions of the one who made it. But since nobody have stepped forward to say “I did it because…” then the natural assumption is that it is a hoax. However, if it is a hoax or not is of very little interest to me. It’s fake, that is all that matters.

    The Spirit Pond rune stones were clearly not made by the same person(s) as the Kengsington stone which is evident from the simple fact that whoever made the spirit pond stones did not speak Swedish, which is the language of the Kensington stone.

  90. Paul G. Stewart permalink

    Yes, I agree with you. Its clearly a fake. What I’m saying is because I know who did it I know what his intentions were…and they are simply this – if the stone was ever found that we would be doing exactly what we are doing now…arguing over it…while its real purpose remained hidden. I think, when you find out the reasoning behind its real purpose you might be amazed. Its is not what anyone has ever considered.

    As to whether the two were made by the same person- absolutely they were, as the creator of both stones could not speak Swedish and wasn’t even Scandinavian. One was done very well…one was done very poorly- something any of us could be accused of at some point in our lives, but the author left a maker’s mark on both which clearly identifies him beyond a shadow of a doubt. He also made the Narragansett stone, the Newberry Tablet, the Heavener stone, the Poteau and Shawnee stones as well.

    As I said earlier, all will be revealed shortly and we will see if I can convince you.

  91. You are now claiming that whoever made the Kensington Runestone, whose writings are in Swedish, did not know Swedish. I’m sorry, that’s complete and utter nonsense.

    That said, I do look forward to see what theory you have come up with, and I have no doubt I will be completely amazed at whatever you come up with in one way or another.

  92. Paul Stewart permalink

    So..let me get this straight…you and I agree that its not real… but you are also convinced the author was Swedish because the KRS, which we agree is fake…was written in clunky Swedish?

    Although my mother’s family is Swedish, I don’t know the language…but my guess is with a few good books..and perhaps a Swedish friend giving me a line or two, I could easily write something in Swedish convincing enough that people would think I actually knew Swedish. As I would never have to actually speak a word….just write 6 sentences in clunky “ancient” Swedish… how hard could it really be?

    Если вы читаете это, вы идиот….there…I just wrote something in Russian. Do I speak Russian or did I just learn to write a sentence in Russian? That’s my point…

    We have civic buildings all over the US with large entrance letters or sayings written in Latin and Greek which were not written by actual Romans or Greeks..but rather by American architects aping these ancient languages. There is no reason to think they are connected.

    The stone is American…made by an American for an American audience.

  93. You seem to think that writing a language is easier than speaking it, when it rather is much harder.

    The Kensington runestone is not just “one sentence”, so your argument that it could be copied or one learnt sentence doesn’t work. You can also not take different sentences from different books and stick them together and make them make sense, unless you know what the sentences say. In which case you know Swedish.

    The text have been composed by somebody that knows Swedish. That doesn’t have to be the same person who carved the runes, but involved in the making of the Kensington runestone was a person who knew Swedish.

    The language is indeed “clunky”, it has idiosyncratic spelling and a few English words stuck in. But the person who wrote the text clearly knew at least passable Swedish. You won’t get around that.

    “The stone is American…made by an American for an American audience.”

    That is absolutely correct.

  94. paul stewart permalink

    We can agree to disagree on the American’s level of proficiency. I know the author knew Swedes and likely had a very very basic understanding of the language…but to say he actually spoke isnt supported by what I know of him…but its minutae anyway…point is…he did all of the stones found in US…all of them.

  95. If he didn’t speak and understand Swedish reasonably well, then your idea of who the author is is incorrect. As simple as that.

    This doesn’t exclude the possibility that he is the originator of one or several of the other stones. It doesn’t exclude the possibility that whoever it is was involved in the Kensington stone. But whoever wrote that text knew a Scandinavian language (Swedish, Norwegian or possibly Danish) quite well.

    I’ll also say this: Your idea that one person is behind all the stones smacks of a desire to find an all-encompassing, be-all-end-all theory. These theories are with very few exceptions completely wrong. It’s like people who want to have the Templars being involved in everything, or blame all the worlds troubles on immigration or capitalism or communism, etc.

    There is simply no way one person is behind all the stones. That explanation is too neat and simple. The real world is not neat and simple.

  96. Paul G. Stewart permalink

    Again, we can agree to disagree…but I have an unfair advantage as I know who did it (and them), and yes, I would agree that the “magic bullet” theory smacks of exactly how it sounds…magic…but there is a common thread behind all of them (beside being written in runes or gibberish), that no one has noted- and no one could have noted, because you need to know who the author is first for any of it to make sense. Once I found this out it became so “easy” to decipher many of these that I could predict many of the results before actually confirming them. Again, patience- all will be revealed soon…at that point you can call me either an idiot or a freekin’ genius.

  97. I never agree to disagree. We just disagree. You have promised to reveal this “soon” for a while now. If you explained when “soon” was maybe I’d take you more seriously. As it is now all I have is some random dude who claims to have a bullet that he not only refuses to show, but claims to be made of non-existing materials.

    To say that I’m skeptical to your claims doesn’t cover it. :-)

  98. Paul Stewart permalink

    Yes I agree that you disagee…and yes “soon” is vague indeed…as I have 4 kids and a real life, so writing it all up is not a full-time gig…so you’ll have to be satisfied with that as an answer. I love skeptics….I remember the skeptic who believed Star Wars would bomb.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. The Kensington Runestone and Stargate « Ancient Aliens in Mass Media

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,225 other followers

%d bloggers like this: