I'm leaning in that direction also.
We need some more like Gloria Farley working on this.
Posted on 05/24/2005 9:45:19 PM PDT by FreeManWhoCan
Kensington, Minn. (WCCO) Researchers have found new evidence of a secret code concealed on the Kensington Runestone, one of the most controversial pieces of Minnesota history.
The rock was found near Alexandria, Minn. a century ago. It bears an inscription that places Norwegians here in 1362.
Were Vikings exploring our land more than 100 years before Columbus? Or is the Kensington Runestone an elaborate hoax?
New research suggests the rune stone is genuine, and a hidden code can prove it.
"Eight Goths and 22 Norwegians on an exploration journey ... 10 men red with blood and dead ... 14 days journey from this island ... year 1362."
The Kensington Runestone's carved words have haunted the Ohman family for more than 100 years.
Olof Ohman has been accused of authoring Minnesota's most famous fraud. The farmer claimed he found the stone buried under a tree in 1898.
Critics believe the language on the rune stone is too modern and that some of the runes are made up. They say Ohman carved it himself to fool the learned.
The Ohman family's faith in the stone has never wavered, however.
"I just never had any doubt," said grandson Darwin Ohman. "I mean, I was very emphatic about it. Absolutely it's real. There's no doubt."
"(Critics are) calling (Olof Ohman) a liar," Minnesota geologist Scott Wolter said. "If this is a hoax, he lied to his two sons, he lied to his family, lied to his neighbors and friends and lied to the world."
Wolter and Texas engineer Dick Nielsen believe hidden secrets are carved in the Kensington Runestone.
"It changes history in a big way," Wolter said.
In 2000, Wolter performed one of the very few geological studies on the Kensington Runestone. He said the breakdown of minerals in the inscription shows the carving is at least 200 years old, placing it before Olof Ohman's time.
Wolter's findings support the first geological study that also found the stone to be genuine, which was performed in 1910.
"In my mind, the geology settled it once and for all," Wolter said.
Linguistic experts believe some of the stone's runes are made up, but Nielsen said he found one of the disputed runes in a Swedish rune document dating back to the 14th century.
"If they were wrong about that, what else were they wrong about?" Wolter said.
Wolter documented every individual rune on the stone with a microscope.
"I started finding things that I didn't expect," Wolter said.
Wolter discovered a dot inside each of four R-shaped runes.
"These are intentional, and they mean something," Wolter said.
Wolter and Nielsen scoured rune catalogs and found the dotted R's.
"It's an extremely rare rune that only appeared during medieval times," Wolter said. "This absolutely fingerprints it to the 14th century. This is linguistic proof this is medieval. Period."
Wolter and Nielsen traced the dotted R to rune-covered graves inside ancient churches on the island of Gotland off the coast of Sweden.
"The next thing that happened is, we started finding on these grave slabs these very interesting crosses," Wolter said.
Templar crosses are the symbol of a religious order of knights formed during the Crusades and persecuted by the Catholic Church in the 1300s.
"This was the genesis of their secret societies, secret codes, secret symbols, secret signs -- all this stuff," Wolter said. "If they carved the rune stone, why did they come here? And why did they carve this thing?"
Wolter has uncovered new evidence that has taken his research in a very different direction. He now believes the words on the stone may not be the record of the death of 10 men, but instead a secret code concealing the true purpose of the stone.
Linguists single out two runes representing the letters L and U as evidence Olof Ohman carved the stone. They are crossed, and linguists say they should not be. A third rune has a punch at the end of one line.
"Maybe they're saying, 'Pay attention to me,'" Wolter said.
Each rune on the stone has a numerical value. Wolter and Nielsen took the three marked runes and plotted them on a medieval dating system called the Easter Table.
When we plotted these three things we got a year: 1362," Wolter said. "It was like, oh my God, is this an accident? Is this a coincidence? I don't think so.
"We think, if it’s the Templars, they confirmed the date which is on the stone -- 1362 -- by using a code in the inscription."
But why would Templars come to America, carve this stone and code the date?
"If it's the Templars, who were under religious persecution at the time, that would be a pretty good reason to come over here," Wolter said. "Maybe the rune stone is a land claim.
"I'm sure a lot of people are going to roll their eyes and say, 'Oh, it's "The DaVinci Code,"' and if they do, they do. This is the evidence, this is who was there, this is what the grave slabs tell us. It is what it is."
Wolter and Nielsen said they expected their work to be criticized. The developments in their research are too recent to have been reviewed by other rune stone experts.
The pair are preparing a book, "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence," for future publication.
Thanks I will check them out.
I've posted some comments elsewhere. I'll just say here that I'd WANT the stone to be real. Heck, I WANT that "Scottish discovery" of America in 1400 to be real. Or the claim that Coluumbus was Jewish (as one recent book "proved") or that Columbus was an illegitimate son of a Portuguese prince (as another recent book "proved"). Produce ONE reputable historian (NOT an "engineer" or a "geologist") to endorse the book's thesis, a person who doesn't stand to profit from the "authentication" of the stone via a book deal.
When I first saw the stone, about 15 yrs ago, I had no opinion until I carefully read the text and looked closely at the runes. When I saw the Latin script abbreviation "AVM", more precisely "AV:M", I was convinced. I realized the author had had some Roman Catholic Clerical exposure. Ohman, a devout, Swede Lutheran, would not likely have known of this.
My father was the product of a German Catholic and Swede Lutheran marital union. From my own experience, Swede Lutherans do not venerate Christ's Mother with nearly the fervor the Catholics do.
I reasoned that "Ave Virgo Maria" or "Ave Maria" coming from his chisel would be about as likely as Rap Artist composing 'Celeste Aida.' There is just too much social distance. It could happen, but naaah!
Templars or no, I am not surprised that the little Bruno Maglie-like details are adding to the weight of evidence.
I was wondering what they may have been doing that far west, ---
It's very easy to explain if you look at a globe and imagine Greenlanders trying to go south along the coast of America.
-- The most direct southerly route from Greenland is into Hudsons Bay and up the main north flowing river, -- the main branch of which ends up being the Red River of Minnesota, where the runestone was discovered.
Sir:
What a hundred Historians say will not alter a concrete scientific fact. But a fact will alter what a hundred Historians say, honest ones anyway.
Facts aren't what we want them to be. They are what they are.
A lot of Anthropologists endorsed Piltdown Man. They did not stand to profit from their endorsement. That didn't make Piltdown Man authentic.
Wolter, in my firsthand opinion, is an honorable man. Please do not attack his findings in an ad-hominem fashion.
My opinion has been tipped in a direction of "genuine". I'm not yet betting the farm yet, though.
The Stone is 36"x18"x6", and of granite-like material. It could have come by train, wagon, travois or boat. It's not native to the Kensington area and came from a considerable distance. It would have been a lot of trouble to to transport by wagon or travois. Train would have been expensive for a joke. In 1898, there was no navigable lake.
Thus the enterprising immigrant would have needed time, 14th century runic knowledge, money, strength, a chisel, stone carving skill, patience and a warped sense of humor. Sound like any body you know?
So, they came into Hudson Bay, to the SW shore, up the rivers to Lake Winnipeg, then South, against the current all the way UP the Red River, all the way to the SD / ND border and were moving EAST or South or SE..
Actually, if they made it all the way to the headwaters, they actually came almost straight East from there, to where they buried the Kensington stone..
Which on foot, would probably be about 10 days journey..
If the travel was done during the spring, they may have been able to take some advantage of the massive flood plain to travel..
Spring flooding would also explain their description of burying their marker on an island
That part of Minnesota is fairly flat, and dotted with many lakes.. not quite as much as farther north and east, but still well covered..
Sunken Civ's post in #31 notes that 8 returned, in 1364, to Sweden..
Considering those 8 survived and returned, one would expect that colonization of some sort would have occurred...
Reports of a land that vast and rich would have driven people crazy with desire..
There should have been veritable flotillas of Swedish and Norwegian ships headed to America (Vinland)..
Yet, this didn't happen...
Just more conjecture, more questions..
You have me interested. Is there a specific title by Samuel Eliot Morrison you recommend?
Any Viking (BTW--by 1362 the term was something of a misnomer) sent to explore Greenland and points west would have known that his safe trip home had to be by ocean-going boat, and had to be east. If one is to believe the Kensington story, the self-same Vikings abandoned their ocean going boats and hiked/canoed hundreds/thousands of miles inland, west, for no discernable reason, ending up in central MN where they had nothing better to do than chip out a message on a hard granite rock.
I'm leaning in that direction also.
We need some more like Gloria Farley working on this.
The journey would have been through Hudson Bay, so the ocean going boats would not have been parked on the east coast. The journey up (South) the Red River from Lake Manitoba would not have as tough as you think either.
In Spring, the Chinook winds dominate. They come from the NW. Thus a boat travelling generally South would have been on a broad or beam reach, a favorable point of sail for such a trip.
A place has been found to the North that resembles the two skerries (islands) described in the text. Norse anchor holes were also found there, which would not have been done by an Indian. Other artifacts have also been found.
The boats they had were somewhat like the boats Lewis and Clark used. They would likely have been lighter and drawn less. There would have been a mast, a square sail and oars. Where Lewis and Clark would have traveled upstream and generally against the wind, the Norsemen would have had a quartering wind, like the Dhows on the Nile.
I urge you to read a bit more and think about it. The facts seem plausible to me. They suggest to me that you may be pooh-poohing the efforts of brave men.
BTW, I have inherited a trove of Civil War books from a Brother in Law. I'd be happy to talk more about that subject. Also, thank you for disagreeing with me in a civil manner. No civil war here.
I don't know anything about the Freemasons. I only added my two cents to this thread because I am familiar with the history of the French monarchy during the middle-ages.
You correctly point out that it was not impossible for Vikings to have made it to MN. My point was rather that they had no motivation to do so, and every motivation to go in the opposite direction. Being unlikely, the burden of proof is on those trying to prove they WERE there, rather than on those trying to prove they WEREN'T. I don't think one stone, of "challenged" (to say the least) origin and authenticity, is enough proof.
I didn't say it was a yarn...you did. I am a co-author of a book on military history which includes the documentation of a dig and the artifacts we recovered from a fort...all are in the local museum. I don't believe in the Templar stuff and I am not interested in reading that new book. I am not an expert in Scandinavian history but my ancestors at one time ruled and at other times were siblings or in laws of the rulers of Norway, Sweden and Denmark but I know nothing of the rune stones. I know enough to see that we are learning more about our history every day and I am delighted that we still have alot to learn. I am have been a local historian for 25 years and I have been fortunate enough to work with two archaeologists and an anthropologist in the field for four summers.
My understanding is that many of the templars made their way to Scotland where they were given refuge by Robert The Bruce. Who by the way, was the traitor of Wallace in the movie Braveheart.
Ancient Site in Newfoundland Offers Clues to Vikings in America
Source: New York Times
Author: JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Posted on 03/15/2001 11:34:06 PST by advocate10
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ab1192e66d2.htm
"Considering those 8 survived and returned, one would expect that colonization of some sort would have occurred... Reports of a land that vast and rich would have driven people crazy with desire.."
Considering the message of despair they left for us on the Kensington runestone, that doesn't seem in any way likely. Another problem that arose was the cooling off -- the Little Ice Age -- which led to the abandonment of the Greenland colonies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.