Kensington Rune Stone

myself | 1-9-02 | myself

[John Locke]

Yes, there was a whole panel on an interior mural at Chichen Itza that showed the Maya engaged in a naval battle with Vikings, but it was too politically incorrect, so it was sent to Mexico City to go into hiding.

I respectfully doubt that. The Maya didn't build boats, and couldn't have fought a naval battle to save their lives. Not to mention that no Mayan cities - none whatever - had a harbor.

[Free Trapper]

Paul!About a month ago my wife took me into town with her.You are NOT burning enough powder!Could anyone tell me how you make the neat blank space between paragraphs?I'm typecally?disfunctional.

[TexanToTheCore]

Bump

[Free Trapper]

The Maya didn't build boats?I don't understand.

[Cultural Jihad]

Mr.Ohman and the Runestone

[TexanToTheCore]

bump

[Free Trapper]

It's inconceivable to me to even question!the Norsemen's abilities to have gone anyplace they set their mind to.

[crystalk]

The Maya did, of course, build large boats including ocean going freight carrying vessels, including ones Columbus met in Honduras but which came from Yucatan.

To say nothing of small ones, how does he think they got from Yucatan to Cozumel, Isla Mujeres, etc.?

[crystalk]

Couldn't be MUCH slower. LOL. The question might not be so much the speed of any alleged current, but whether there is enough water to float the boat.

[Free Trapper]

When the Aztec ran Cortez' boys out of Tenochtitlan the Spaniards were nearly overcome on the causeways by the Aztec Navy(hundreds of canoes).The Spanish built 13 brigantines,dug a canal to float them to the lake,and placed them under sail to gain naval superiority.When the Spanish ran short on cannon powder,they built a catapult that didn't work out quite as well.After threatening the Aztec with destruction by use of the catapult for several days,their first shot went up and landed back on the catapult.Cortez was not pleased and had the catapult torn apart.

[FairWitness]

The article "An Ancient North African Treasure-Trove in Southern Illinois" was amazing. Apparently fleeing Roman oppression, a bunch of first century AD Jews, Christians, and Mauritanian sailors made it all the way to Illinois, leaving artifacts behind.

Sounds a little bit like an SF/fantasy novel I read quite a few years ago.

[TexanToTheCore]

I just checked the Topo map and it resembles Southwestern Illinois which was entirely swamp. The drainage channels are an accurate indication of a water problem. It is very likely that the soil in this area became saturated in late fall and when the snowpack melted, flooded.
We have hemmed in our rivers and deepened them over the last two hundred years and they don't resenble their state that long ago. It is very likely that this area was subjected to wide area floods that were not particularly deep, but lasted for some time each year. The current would be quite slow, perhaps imperceptible over large areas and would definitely be traversible.
We tend to associate floods with damage these days but a seafaring people would see a flood as an opportunity to explore, a new eight lane highway taking them into the interior. I don't doubt that the island was exactly that.
The boat used could be rather large, perhaps 30-40 feet, draughng 2 feet at the keel. It would definitely handle the number of men claiimed. If two boats, two of twenty feet would do the trick. A twenty footer could draught as little as 18 to 20 inches.

[okie01]

Viewing the stone as a ballast stone got me thinking.

Say, once the longboat was moored in Lake Winnipeg, the Norse fabricated smaller ships on site to explore the outlying areas. Those responsible for the Kensington stone were one such group.

Hypothetically, these smaller ships had a capacity of say ten to twelve, were shallow draft for navigating streams, but had a sail and mast for navigating the lake itself. Thus, ballast stones would be in order.

Such a craft could easily proceed south to the mouth of the Red, then work its way upriver for a considerable distance. Now, remember the topography between the Red and Runestone Hill -- extremely flat and poorly drained, as demonstrated by the number of artificial drainage ditches.

It is conceivable to me that, during the Spring flood, after snow melt, the entire landscape might be under water. It would be possible for a shallow draft boat to sail across a couple of counties to reach Runestone Hill.

Then, having beached at this location, it is also conceivable that the water began to recede. Once their boat wouldn't float, the crew was stuck -- unable to move. Because, now being surrounded by miles of marsh, they couldn't walk out, either!

This theory would seem to explain a number of otherwise inexplicable items:

1. The 14-day interval. If they were afloat the entire period, 14 days is a reasonable span to make the trip.

2. How the 220 lb stone got to the hill from wherever it came.

3. Why the reference to islands (hills above the flood) and why the group was stranded where they were and compelled to record their experience.

[TexanToTheCore]

I suspect that expeditions were sent out each year at flood time, sometimes for serious purposes many times for fun, possibly a casual rite of passage for young men, something to brag about in the presence of the young ladies.
Up until the mid 1800s most boats had very shallow draughts and were ballasted with stone. The mediterranean and the coasts of Europe are littered with stones that came from somewhere else. If you dig underneath them you can sometimes find a keel, as it is a marker for a ship that went down.

[TexanToTheCore]

Oddly enough, the 14 day figure as a standard unit of measure gives a clue into the sailing technique of the Norsemen. Their ships would only be capable of about 3.5 to 4 knots and in order to make sense, it would require that the ships did not heave to at dusk, but would continue to sail throughout the night with a second crew.
If they used this technique, it would deefinitely be a fourteen day sail.

[TexanToTheCore]

bump

[TexanToTheCore]

Can you post the full text of the stone? I'd be curious to see it.
thanks....

[crystalk]

Front: "8 Goths and 22 Norrmen on a discovery-voyage from Vinland around the West. We had camp by 2 skerries one day-trip north from this stone. We were out fishing one day. After we came home we found 10 men red with blood and dead. AVM (ie Virgin Mary), save us from evil!"

Side: "Have 10 Men of ours to look after our ships 14 day-trips north from this island. Year 1362."

[TexanToTheCore]

A few words on the flooding that might have occurred in this area. The most recent example of wide area flooding that would float a viking boat or ship was relatively recent. It occurred along the Mississippi in 1993 and affected Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin. At one point, in August or July one could have launched a viking ship just east of Des Moines, Iowa and sailed it into Illinois without touching bottom. So the idea that thousands of square miles of prairie could be flooded is not at all far fetched.

[TexanToTheCore]

The skerries are not much of a problem if you think of them as small knolls scattered throughout the flooded. Can they be identified? Possibly, but it is also likely that they were destroyed by farmers as they cleared the land of rock and first broke the soil. They could have camped on another knoll.

Where did they come from? Probably from a settlement that was south of their entry point. This allow for the carving of traveling "round the West". It could also be a idiomatic expression for anything other than a coastal area, which is quite likely.

Was this part of Erlindsson's mission to find the lost Norsemen? Probably not. The lack of reference to a King or reign would lead me to the conclusion that the trip was a single month long lark, a simple trip to learn more about Vinland.

The absence of thirty men from a settlement is somewhat difficult to understand. If the area of settlement was extremely rich in food resources (which is quite possible considering the stunning salmon runs up Canadian rivers at the time) it would certainly be possible. The other possiblity is that the settlement was large enough to be relatively unaffected by the absence of this many men. Although a large settlement has not been found that would be this size, it may exist in some protected place that has not been found. My own opinion is that the area required substantially less work for survival and that the men's absence would not be missed for a fairly long period of time. Perhaps that was why it was called Vinland.

Could ten men sail an ocean going ship? Yes, indeed. Because of the simplicity of the rigging, it could probably be sailed by 4 people. 1 forward watch, 1 on the lee board (steering) and 2 on the mains'l.