Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
The Kensington Rune Stone
articles by Yuri Kuchinsky posted and discussed in sci.archaeology
All these Usenet discussions have made it quite clear that no good arguments against the authenticity of KRS exist.
These are only some of the articles I wrote about that famous Kensington Rune Stone that was found by Farmer Ohman about 100 years ago as he was clearing the field for planting. This mystery in rural Minnesota has puzzled the world ever since. Many more articles on this subject, hundreds of them in fact, are available in DejaNews. For some reason, this discussion always evokes strong emotions among various posters. And of course, if you do a WWW search on "Kensington Rune Stone", you will find great many webpages of all sorts dedicated to it. The latest articles from summer of '98 are added at the end.
This was my first general article on the subject. It created quite a stir back then...
Subject: Kensington Stone & S. Williams: debunking went wrong?
From: yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 1997/07/16
Message-ID: <5qiqa5$9ka$1@trends.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.history.medieval,soc.history.what-if,
soc.culture.nordic,sci.skeptic
KENSINGTON STONE: A DEBUNKING WENT WRONG? (Stephen Williams' FANTASTIC
ARCHAEOLOGY and some of its fallacies.)
by Yuri Kuchinsky
So what is really the truth about the Kensington Stone of Minnesota? It's
interesting that there seems to have been a lack of takers in
sci.archaeology recently to argue the case against its authenticity. So,
in order to compare various arguments, I've looked up now the relevant
passages in a notable "debunking" volume, a classic in its own genre, by
Stephen Williams, of Harvard University. (Stephen Williams, FANTASTIC
ARCHAEOLOGY, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991.)
I have looked into this controversy around the Kensington Stone in detail
by now, and I must state here my opinion that I believe it to be genuine.
It will soon be 100 years since the stone was found by Olof Ohman while
clearing a field near Kensington, Minnesota, in the fall of 1898. So
perhaps it is now fitting time to look at this unusual archaeological find
and how it was treated by the academic establishment.
Williams' hefty volume contains quite a few debunkings. Many of them, such
as the stories of "Sunken Continents", the "Creationist" mish-mash, and
the "Psychic Archaeology" stuff are quite valid and necessary. It is
important that researchers and interested amateurs should know the
difference between science and pseudo-science. But in a number of places
Williams in his zeal definitely oversteps the limits dictated by both
objectivity and the common sense. And here, his volume itself slips into
pseudo-scholarship. In particular, his treatment of George Carter is
rather unfair. His treatment of Barry Fell is extremely cursory, and, in
this case, Williams seems mostly to deal in insults and snide
insinuations (more on this at the end of this article).
Quite a few files concerning the Kensington Stone exist on the WWW at a
number of websites. (Provided at the end of this post.) The files include
bibliographies, illustrations, detailed analyses, and the like. So I don't
feel I have to go into great detail in this article. I include some quotes
from certain WWW sites later on, but meanwhile, here's a brief overview of
this unusual story.
The inscription, dated in 1362, is quite a disturbing one -- in fact it's
content is almost spooky. It reads like a desperate plea to posterity from
a group of very frightened Norse who find themselves very far into a
hostile territory, and a number of whose companions were just murdered by
persons unknown. They most likely thought they will be next, it seems, and
so they chiseled this inscription into a rock, to leave some memory of
their ill-fated presence in this bushland of Minnesota...
And to add to the strangeness of the message, the discoverers of the Stone
were... also Swedes (mixed with Norwegians)! One may understand how the
"debunkers" would have been licking their chops at such a strange
coincidence... Oh, never mind... And later on, Williams brings to our
attention some other strange coincidences associated with the stone, as
well... In particular he says, among other things, that
" ... in 1862, during the Indian wars that broke out during the Civil War,
a group of Scandinavians at Norway Lake, not far from Kensington, came
back from church and found ten of their number brutally killed by the
Indians." (p. 205)
Of course the inscription on the Stone also tells about 10 companions of
the authors of the inscription being murdered in the vicinity...
Strange... Williams also gives a couple of other somewhat unusual
coincidences associated with the Stone's message. I really don't know what
to make of this all, except I believe these things really cannot be taken
as a proof of anything. Just some of such things that seem to happen in
this strange "real world" of ours now and again...
In any case, to continue with the story of the Kensington Stone.
Great controversies took place around the Stone right from the time it was
found. Strong opinions were expressed both pro and con its authenticity.
It is interesting that in 1915 the Minnesota Historical Society pronounced
it genuine. (p. 198, op. cit.)
Williams basically accepts that the stone was found in the ground
entwisted in the roots of a tree. The age of the tree is in doubt,
according to him, but he accepts the stone would have spent at least a few
years in the ground prior to being uncovered. Clearly, Williams thinks an
intricate and convoluted conspiracy existed among the finders, the simple
poor Swedish farmers, to forge the stone.
Williams makes much of the discovery, in 1949, in a private letter, of an
early copy of the inscription that contains a large number of errors. This
discovery was publicized in 1951, in ANTIQUITY, by Erik Moltke, and it
created a lot of negative publicity for the Stone:
"Using the British journal ANTIQUITY as his platform, Moltke published in
1951 a strongly worded denunciation of the stone with the major force of
his argument drawn from Holvik's archival find [of the above mentioned
poor copy]." (p. 200)
A bunch of extremely suspicious debunkers believed that this early copy of
the Stone inscription was in fact not a copy at all, but a "working draft"
of the conspiratorial forgers! Williams also subscribes to this theory.
"It is not a 'true' copy; there are 'mistakes'. Indeed, when the copy is
carefully compared with the stone, at least a dozen differences are
apparent. How could this be? Perhaps it is a 'bad' copy..." (p. 201)
According to Williams, the "forgers" were working long and hard to get the
inscription ironed out before engraving it on the stone. The silliness of
this argument will become apparent later on when I will present evidence
that in order to get the inscription right, the bunch of semiliterate
farmers had to know much more about the medieval Swedish than any of the
top scholars of the day could ever know! In any case, this extremely
suspicious "theory" of Williams' is refuted in minute detail at one of the
WWW sites that I mentioned.
How unqualified these very unlikely "master forgers" would have been to
forge a runic inscription of such a grammatical sophistication is
illustrated by the fact that in the very same letter, where the "forgers"
were supposed to have been consulting with each other in private, its
writer, J. Hedberg, described the letters of the runic inscription as "old
Greek letters." (p. 201)
On p. 202, Williams discusses the educational record of Ohman, the
discoverer.
"Hagen [a defender of the Stone] tries to make the point that no one among
the discoverers knew runes ... but the facts are contrary to that opinion.
Indeed, some knowledge of runes was a common part of nineteenth-century
Swedish heritage..." (p. 202)
"Some knowledge or runes"? We're talking about a farmer with a few months
of formal education! Some knowledge indeed...
Now I will give a couple of quite strong reasons why I think the Stone is
genuine. First, I don't think the Lutheran Swedish farmers of the 19th
century would have ever known that the Swedes of the 14th century making
it to America would have been Catholic. (As the reading of the inscription
will show, the inscription contains a Catholic prayer to AVE MARIA.) And
even had they known this, they would have been quite unlikely to provide a
free plug for the Vatican for which they would have had few sympathies.
And, furthermore, the same AVE MARIA, the way it was abbreviated on the
Stone, provides an additional very strong indication the inscription is
genuine. This is explained in detail at one of the WWW sites. Read on.
Here are some passages from the statement by Rolf M. Nilsestuen, the
author of a recent volume, "The Kensington Runestone Vindicated", 1994.
His full "rebuttal to the critics of the Stone" is available on the WWW,
at:
[22]http://members.aol.com/kensrune
His book is very well researched, it contains statements by eminent modern
runic scholars in defence of the Stone, and the following passage is quite
telling.
[begin quotes]
Ohman [the discoverer of the Stone] had a total of only nine months
"formal" education as a child in Sweden. His only book on Swedish grammar
contained the standard list of 12th century runes, but little else that
would have been of use to him in forging the inscription. [Great many of
the runes found in the inscription are not in that book, a very basic
primary-school textbook that Ohman had in his house - Y.] Yet to do so, he
would have had to know a long list of facts that were unknown to
university scholars until the 20th century:
* that the flowery, inflected word endings and plural word forms of
Old Norse had been dropped from the vernacular by the middle of the 14th
century;
* that a dozen runic forms not given in published futharks in the
14th century were in use at that time;
* that the pentadic decimal system of numerals was known in
Scandinavia in the 14th century;
* that the site of the discovery had been an island in a lake in the
14th century, something modern geologists still cannot be certain of;
* that the five modern English words also happened to be Norwegian
words in the 14th century;
* that in Scandinavia in the 14th century "a day's sailing" on
inland waters was 75 English miles;
* that the route from Hudson Bay to Kensington is marked by a series
of Viking-style mooring stones;
* that "havet" (salt water) lies within 14 "sailing days" of
Kensington;
* that in the 14th century, Roman letters were used with runes to
show special respect to the Deity;
* that the Catholic prayer, "Ave Virgo Maria save (us) from evil,"
was recited at funerals for victims of the plague (How likely is it that a
l9th century Lutheran farmer would have had such information?);
* that an expedition composed of Swedes and Norwegians, an otherwise
unheard-of situation, had been in North America in 1362;
* finally, he would have had to know that, hidden in the brush in a
remote spot by a lake 75 miles (one "sailing day") north of Kensington,
there are two large boulders with Viking-style mooring holes in them that
mark the scene of the massacre. Before the lake level was lowered in the
l9th century, they would have been in the water and would have fit the
definition of 'skerries.'
...
One problem with these people [the critics of the authenticity of the
stone] is that they get carried away by their own rhetoric and go
overboard, thus destroying any credibility they might otherwise have had.
To believe the inscription is a forgery, it is necessary to believe a long
list of things that range from the wildly improbable to the flatout
impossible, but that does not deter the critics from inventing excuses for
believing what they want to believe. The claims of forgery are built on an
edifice of unfounded insinuation that (1) all the witnesses to the
discovery formed a conspiracy to lie, (2) the medieval manuscripts from
which the evidence was obtained are unreliable, and (3) the long list of
eminent scholars who have provided the evidence and arguments for
authenticity were incompetent. I rest my case for the defense. Rolf M.
Nilsestuen."
"The Kensington Runestone Vindicated", 1994, By Rolf M. Nilsestuen
Cloth-bound in Norse red w/gold lettering. 203 pp., photos, bib. Available
from the publisher for $39 + s/h. University Press of America, 4720 Boston
Way, Lanham, MD 20706, or from the author for $20 + $1.50 s/h. Rolf M.
Nilsestuen, 5404 Woodacre Drive, Suitland, MD 0746-2297
[end quotes]
The following is the "Home Page" for the Kensington Stone. You will find a
number of other relevant links at this site:
[23]http://www.sound.net/~billhoyt/kensington.htm
And now, let's get back to that AVE MARIA abbreviation. Info about this is
available at another website, linked with the previous one.
[begin quote]
Three letters on the Stone, AVM, pictured above, provide the sufficient
mark of antiquity to declare the Kensington Stone genuine. Keith A.J.
Massey and his twin brother Kevin Massey-Gillespie have noted that the
convention of medieval abbreviation presented in these letters is beyond
the reasonable ability of even the most expert forger. The details around
this Latin abbreviation will convince even the most hardened skeptic that
the Kensington Stone is the real article.
[end quote]
Basically, what the authors of this theory, the Massey brothers, are
saying, is that AVE MARIA, abbreviated on the Stone as AVM, provides the
best single item of proof that the Stone is genuine. The letter V in AVM
is inscribed on the stone in a special sort of way, with an elongated
right-hand part of the letter V. This is known as a _superscript_. Using
such superscripts in abbreviations was common in the middle ages, but not
at all in the 19th century. And yet only very few specialists on medieval
epigraphy in the world would know that this abbreviation is the right one.
Certainly semiliterate 19th century Swedish farmers had no way in Heaven
or Hell to know this... Read more about this, and see the images at:
[24]http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/keithngail
Detailed info is available from the same site linked at:
[25]http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/keithngail/ks2.htm
As I understand it, the consensus on the Kensington Stone is slowly
changing at this time in the positive sense. It is helpful to keep in mind
that the negative opinions against the stone were formulated at the time
when relatively little was known either about the runes, or about the
medieval Swedish. We know a lot more now. New research tended to provide
more support for the genuineness of the Stone.
And, more importantly, these negative opinions were formulated at the time
when any theories about early presence of the Norse in America were
considered _highly speculative_, if not outright kooky. Since Helge
Ingstad's discoveries in Canada, this is speculative no more. I suppose
Kensington Stone scholarship will have to factor this "astounding fact" in
slowly but surely. I'm aware of a rumour that a certain quite notable and
distinguished "debunker" (not Williams), who was previously negative, now
changed his position and seems to accept that the Kensington Stone is
genuine. One wonders how long it will be before Williams himself will see
the light?
Best wishes,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- [26]http://www.io.org/~yuku
Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman, but believing what he
read made him mad -=O=- George Bernard Shaw
p.s.
Here's a note about how I feel Barry Fell, a controversial researcher of
similar subjects, now deceased, was treated by Willaims.
Nobody said Fell's historical legacy is problem-free. He was a very
unusual character with great many interests and an unstoppable energy. He
allowed freely that some of his claims and historical theories may not
stand as valid in the future. He didn't even care about it! Now, this will
be truly shocking to your true-blue super-careful academic who fears being
"exposed" as incorrect on even one uncautious claim more than the plague.
The true and amazing story of Fell and the archaeological profession, this
immense culture-clash, this War of the Worlds, still remains to be written
in all its winding and twisting detail. Williams didn't even scratch the
surface... (Interestingly, Williams allows that Fell's "batting average"
may be "an anemic .100, to be on the generous side" [p. 283]. If this is
so, then among Fell's thousands of claims there will be a few hundred
valid ones! One would like to ask Williams which of Fell's theories he
finds valid, but not a word further is said in his book about this...)After some discussions, I've posted this second overview article about the KRS in order to clarify some wide-spread misconceptions.
Subject: KRS: how the historical evidence was nearly lost
From: yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 1997/08/11
Message-ID: <5snga4$90v$1@trends.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.history.medieval,soc.culture.nordic,
sci.skeptic
Kensington Rune Stone: how the historical truth was nearly lost.
By Yuri Kuchinsky.
Kensigton Rune Stone is an extremely important historical relic. It is a
part of North American heritage that can cast considerable light on what
really went on in some parts of precolumbian America. It can also provide
us with a good case study of how scholarly process can work -- or
sometimes fail to work -- in this quite controversial field of American
prehistory where evidence is often scarce and confusing, the opinions are
often quite heated, and the historical truth not so easy to establish.
Every little bit of evidence is important in this field, and Kensington
Rune Stone provides us with a substantial amount, I believe...
Jan Bohme, a Swedish philologist, has recently contributed to these
discussions, and I find his contributions very revealing. He presented
quite a barrage of arguments against the authenticity of the KRS, and I
and others will deal with all of them in due time. Meanwhile, I would like
to present another overview of the Stone's recent history, and how it was
treated by the academic establishment. This is based on my recent
rereading of THE KENSINGTON RUNESTONE VINDICATED, by Rolf Nilsestuen,
University Press of America, 1994. (The author now also has a webpage
where his arguments can be found in greater detail at
[22]http://members.aol.com/kensrune
This is a very well researched book that deals quite adequately with all
arguments against KRS's authenticity, and contains abundant citations of
recent literature.
Jan, being a specialist in medieval Scandinavian history and linguistics,
presents mostly linguistic arguments. He, very typically for his
compatriots, almost completely disregards the circumstances of the
discovery of the KRS near Kensington, Minnesota. I would like to stress
here that _all_ linguistic arguments against the authenticity of the Stone
have been proven invalid by the scholars like Sivert N. Hagen, and more
recently by Prof. Robert A. Hall, a distinguished Cornell University
linguist, and Richard Nielsen who dedicated a lifetime of research to
KRS. The proof is in the books that were published on the subject
recently. Citations have been given already.
So, for now, I will deal here mostly with how the Stone was discovered and
what happened next. Linguistic arguments aside, this alone should strongly
indicate authenticity.
The Stone would have probably never been found if not for one tree that
the immigrant farmer Olof Ohman found very difficult to get out of the
ground as he was clearing a field near Kensington, in the fall of 1898.
When the tree was finally uprooted, it proved to have been growing over a
big flat stone buried in the ground beneath it. The roots of the tree were
entwined around the stone. This is not disputed by anyone at all. A great
number of witnesses verified this. Some later critics tried to challenge
the age of the tree, true, but it was obviously at least a few years old.
Best reports indicate that the tree was around 70 years old.
Ohman and his young son Edward, who was helping him in the work, noticed
that the Stone had unusual markings on it. The news travelled fast, and
all the neighbourhood soon heard about this unusual discovery. People came
to look at the Stone and the uprooted tree that Ohman displayed for all to
see. There's no doubt about this, as the Minnesota Historical Society
investigated all this very carefully in 1908-1910. These old reports of
the Society are readily available.
Nobody had the slightest idea what those markings represented. A copy of
the inscription was made, and sent to the University of Minnesota. It was
a very poor copy. A Prof. Breda of said University, who actually didn't
know much about runes, didn't like what he saw. And this is how the
confusion began...
"Unfortunately, Breda knew very little about runes and was unable to read
some of the words or any of the numbers, including the year." (op. cit. p.
13)
In his great wisdom, Breda concluded that the inscription was purportedly
from the 11th century (since he managed to make out the word "Vinland").
And since the inscription wasn't written in the Old Norse of the 11th
century, he concluded on this basis: a fake! Believe it or not... He
actually _never bothered_ to take a short trip to Kensington to see the
Stone or the tree associated with it for himself! Now, this is some
methodology... This is the dedicated and dispassionate quest for the past!
And thus began the chain of absurdities, misunderstandings, plain
stupidities, errors, and outright distortions that the opponents of the
Stone seemed to have perpetuated even unto the present day....
Oh, yes, the authorities in Scandinavia were also consulted at the time by
the good Prof. Breda. One should give him credit at least for this... I
suppose it is easier to send a letter than to go and look at an unusual
discovery made only a hundred miles away from home... And this is how
Prof. Rygh of Oslo also got involved at the time. He was equally negative.
To give him some benefit of the doubt a) he was considerably further from
the discovery and it would have been a little harder for him to make the
trip, and b) the copy he was sent (most likely the very same one as used
by Breda) was chock full of errors. In 1965, it was discovered that the
copy he had to work with was hopeless.
"...the inscription from which Rygh translated contained 33 (!) errors
including the omission of two whole words." (p. 15)
Can you believe this now? All these glaring errors for an inscription
consisting of all of 65 words? So this is what Jan's "competent
Scandinavian professionals" had to work with! This is how Jan's vaunted
"consensus" was formed. Need I say more?
It also needs to be noted that Rygh was not a runologist or philologist
(p. 14). He was an archaeologist. But he was apparently never informed
about the circumstances of the discovery of this artifact! And he didn't
bother to ask, it seems...
So here we go... This is the methodology to follow! One sorry academic
"investigator", Breda, proved to be, it seems, due to his unbelievable
laziness and shiftlessness, a veritable discredit to his profession. The
other one, Rygh, was passing judgements about the area he was not really
competent in, while working in the dark because of the errors in the
copy... Quite a chain of errors, indeed...
You may have wondered why the Minnesota Historical Society investigated
the discovery 10 years later, so late after the fact... Well, we certainly
should be very grateful it investigated at all... Because it needs to be
said that after the dreadful fiasco of its first interface with the
Academe, the KRS was in fact very nearly "buried back into the earth"...
Yes, dear friends, the logic of events tended to point inevitably to this
outcome. I'm sure that none of us would have ever learned about this
unusual artifact if not for a chance event...
When the good farmer Ohman learned from wise professors that the Stone was
"forged", presumably by his own person, he scratched his head and decided
to forget all about it... I guess the fact that the cattle had to be fed
outweighed by far most other considerations for him? So he made a
_doorstep_ of the Stone, and proceeded to other pressing business!
Apparently he was heard to say that if the learned professors thought that
the stone is not what it's supposed to be, then they must be right in any
case... (p. 167) They were the ones who were wise in books, while he could
just sign his own name, and usually relied on others to compose the few
letters he needed to write...
So this most likely would have been the end of this story... if not for a
young graduate student named Hjalmar Holand who was doing some
sociological research in 1907 in the area. Everyone in the big world
outside Kensington had already forgotten about the curious relic by that
time. But Holand was told about it by some farmers, and he decided to
investigate for himself. The result was a lifetime committment to this
historical artifact and its history. This is how we know what we know now.
The history was rescued from oblivion by a chance event...
Holland published his first article about this in 1908, in a Chicago
newspaper. Thanks to him, public attention was woken up, and the MHS
carefully investigated the circumstances of the discovery. The conclusion
of the Society was that the Stone was the real thing.
"...the MHS Committee ... in 1910 and again in 1913, unanimously declared
its conclusion that it [the KRS] is genuine." (p. 22)
Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how its conclusion could have been
otherwise... Since most of the numerous eyewitnesses were still around,
and the Stone attracted plenty of local attention at the time, and all the
participants in this story were very well known in the small community as
hard-working and honest men, the facts of the discovery were all there to
see. It was the _tree_ that was the deciding factor, most likely!
Nilsestuen himself grew up on the farm in this very same area, and he adds
a unique perspective to his book because of this. He knows these people
very well. These are not some sort of con artists. These are upstanding
and deeply religious people who swore out affidavits testifying that all
they said was true. Why would they commit perjury? Indeed, the only motive
ever suggested by the "debunkers" is... as a prank! This is really very
insulting to suggest that these people, these simple farmers, would lie
under oath for such a reason... None of them ever stood to profit from any
of this. What kind of "conspirators" were they? Really...
I would suggest that all linguistic and runological evidence aside,
supposing that the competent scholars may legitimately disagree about the
inscription itself, the benefit of the doubt should CLEARLY be on the side
of the conclusions reached by the Minnesota Historical Society at that
time. In my opinion, the circumstances of the discovery, by themselves,
give a clear indication that the Stone is genuine.
But the linguistinc evidence is FAR FROM BEING EQUIVOCAL. This needs to be
dealt with separately, but the linguistic evidence ALSO clearly supports
the truth that the Stone is authentic.
And what if Hjalmar Holand did not stumble upon this Stone way back in
1907? What if he passed it by? What do you think would have happened?
Another piece of ancient American history dug up and then buried back into
the ground? Quite a few of those... Yes, I think this would have been
quite likely.
We should really ask, Why and how such things can happen in scholarship in
this field of study? Why the politicisation, the angry taking of sides,
the vitriol, the uninformed dismissals, the refusal to deal with reality?
Yes, friends, these things do happen in this field often enough. That's
why the story of the Kensington Rune Stone must be looked at in detail.
Quite apart from what it can tell us about medieval history, it can also
tell us a lot about the way our scholarly community in this particular
field (but perhaps not only?) often proceeds when looking at such
questions.
It should also be noted that great many of the academic opponents of the
Stone's authenticity reside in Scandinavia. Why this is so is an
interesting and far from a very simple question. Jan of course is terribly
wrong, and quite uninformed when he says that some sort of a "unanimous"
academic consensus exists in Scandinavia against the Stone. I have the
proof to show him wrong. This proof was not hard to find... And this is
not the first time he came up with an ill-informed, and a rather
prejudiced statement... But it is true that the Scandinavian scholars seem
to be more biased against this artifact than other researchers. The errors
of Prof. Rygh die hard.
It seems to me that _classism_ is mainly to blame here. After all, the
haughty Scandinavian upper class academic intellectuals always looked down
with thinly disguised contempt on the "illiterate and oafish farmers" who
chose to immigrate to America to escape from poverty, and from the
considerable oppression they were subjected to by their ruling classes in
the "Old Country". What could these city snobs expect from the "stupid
country bumpkins", their less fortunate compatriots, who went to carve out
by their sweat and extremely hard work farmsteads in the Minnesota
bushland? "Nothing good, let me tell you..." They found a Rune Stone?
"Yeah, sure..."
This is the sort of attitude that I see underlying Jan's arrogant
comments...
I will continue with my reply to Jan as the days go by...
Best regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- [23]http://www.io.org/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. GalbraithThis article goes into the general background and meaning of the KRS. Part of a discussion with Tom Kavanagh.
Subject: So the KRS is real. Big Deal.
From: yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 1997/08/25
Message-ID: <5tqsbm$dvd$2@trends.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.history.nordic
tom kavanagh (tkavanag@indiana.edu) wrote:
...
: (3) there is no evidence that any such voyages had any significance upon
: the culture history of native North America.
:
: Once again, my question is: why are you arguing this point? Even if it
: was true, it had no historical significance on this side.
Dear Tom,
You seem to assume that there was no significant impact on culture
history. I believe you may be incorrect. One of the reasons I investigated
the KRS, was to research the possibility that there was a wider and a more
long-term Scandinavian presence in America than is generally assumed.
If the KRS is genuine, and if there was a wider presence of Scandinavians
in America, then two things are possible. Either they were widely present
but left no impact, which would be quite curious in itself, or they did
leave some significant impact, but this impact is being missed completely
by our mainstream scholarship. I have a hunch that the latter may be the
case.
Your questions about impact and significance are certainly valid and
worthwhile, and, myself, I'm interested in finding answers to them. And
yet such answers are often fragmentary at this point.
Sure, I would like to try to answer these questions in detail, but,
unfortunately, in the existing climate of bitterness and controversy in
this area, when irrationality and knee-jerk emotionalism of many responses
are so obvious, it will be very hazardous to offer speculative theories
for discussion. Certainly plenty of willful ignorance and misinformation
exists in this area. So even when I often offer solid arguments,
buttressed by respectable sources, these arguments fall of deaf ears,
and/or create a lot of unreasoned hostility. Also, very often people try
to twist and misinterpret what I say. Imagine what is bound to happen if I
will offer less than solid arguments then?
In any case, let me state some things that I believe may be valid. I
believe that the presence of Scandinavians in precolumbian America, and
their influence, are badly underestimated in the mainstream scholarship at
this time. Most likely, the Scandinavians have been here both much longer,
and in far greater numbers than is commonly believed. It is possible that
when the settlements in Greenland were abandoned because of climate
cooling, many of those people came to America. (Also, as a sidenote, very
early Celtic presence in America was certainly also possible, and has been
explored.)
As well, it is possible and likely that many of the north-eastern
Amerindian tribes intermarried with these Scandinavians, absorbed them,
and received a significant cultural influence from them. We will have big
difficulties in identifying signs of all this simply because in the first
years of brutal postcolumbian European attack on Amerindian cultures,
great numbers of those peoples were obliterated and had their possibly
quite unique cultures destroyed. And yet we have many hints from early
explorers that tend to indicate that those north-east Amerindian cultures
were very special and very sophisticated in many respects. Unfortunately,
they were the first to bear the brunt of modern European colonial
expansion.
Many intriguing problems exist in this area. Take for example the
possibility that precolumbian Amerindians had the horse. (Of course, we
all know that the indigenous American horse became extinct during a very
early period.) Early explorers remarked on this quite often. The horses
that the Natives apparently had very early were seemingly quite different
from those the Spanish brought over. They, it seems, were small and
varicoloured. It is possible that they derived from the Scandinavian
ponies. We know that there were horses in Greenland. A look at the map
will indicated how close Greenland is to Newfoundland.
There are many such interesting problems in ancient American history. Rock
inscriptions, and language studies present great many of them, so the KRS
is certainly not unique in this area. Unfortunately, mainstream
scholarship tends to avoid these problems like the plague. And then, the
establishment scholars have the nerve to complain about the "cult
archaeologists" who are left alone to pursue these dark areas of American
history!
Here's some bibliography where these matterss are explored.
Mallery, A., & M. Harrison, REDISCOVERY OF LOST AMERICA, New York, E. P.
Dutton, 1979 -- In this book, great many sites indicating possible
precolumbian European presence are explored.
McGlone, William R., and Phillip M. Leonard, ANCIENT AMERICAN
INSCRIPTIONS: PLOW MARKS OR HISTORY?, 1993, Early Sites Research Society:
Rowley, Massachusetts. -- This is the best recent source dealing with the
great many possible precolumbian European and Mediterranean inscriptions
in America. Very respectably and carefully argued.
Gunnar Thompson, AMERICAN DISCOVERY, Argonauts Misty Isles Press, Seattle,
Washington, 1994. -- This is a very interesting book. The author gathers
plenty of sources and ideas dealing with transoceanic contacts together in
one richly illustrated volume. He deals in some detail with the
Scandinavian presence. While I will admit that a number of things the
author says may be speculative, the amount of solid, unique, and very
little known information in this volume is quite incredible.
Best regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- [22]http://www.io.org/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. GalbraithThis is part of an exchange with Jan Böhme, a Swedish linguist. He seemed to be rather uninformed about this subject. I'm trying to explain to him that quite a number of respected Scandinavian linguists support the authenticity of the KRS. He didn't believe this at first...
Subject: KRS: Jan is proven wrong again
From: yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 1997/08/08
Message-ID: <5sfhsf$c64$1@trends.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.history.medieval,
soc.culture.nordic,sci.skeptic
Jan.Bohme@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) wrote on 1997/08/04
in 5s4plv$48g$2@news.datakom.su.se:
> bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> >As far as Jan's "unanimity of Scandinavian runic experts contra the
> >authenticity", I can assure him that it exists only in his own seemingly
> >rather overheated imagination. I don't know why people sometimes wish to
> >distort reality where the truth is obviously otherwise... Jan's
> >credibility is the only victim of such self-evident attempts to forge a
> >fake "consensus". And then he has the nerve to chide you for not
> >respecting experts' opinions! Indeed...
>
> Could you then provide me with _one single instance_ of a Scandinavian
> scholar with a degree in nordic language history or runology who has
> ever even left open the possibility that the inscription be genuine?
>
> Yours, impatiently
>
> Jan Böhme
Yes, Jan, I know how impatient you are to see yourself PROVEN WRONG. Wait
no longer, my poor misguided friend...
This should put paid to more of your uninformed claims about Kensinton
Rune Stone (KRS). I hope at some point you will realize just how
wrongheaded you're being, and how ignorant you sound when you so
arrogantly pretend to pronounce opinions on the subject you apparently
know so little about.
Writing about Wahlgren, the main recent "debunker" of the KRS, Nilsestuen
(1994) says the following about this quite an unscrupulous character:
"In his reviews [of Hall:1982], Wahlgren did not discuss a single fact
regarding the linguistic and runic elements that Hall brought forth. He
ignored an impressive part of the professional community who have defended
Kensington, including [listen carefully, Jan!] the Swedish philologist and
lexicographer Hjalmar Lindroth, the Norwegian philologist Gustav Indrebo,
and William Thalbitzer of Copenhagen, who was an accomplished linguist,
and researched the Greenland runes, and was very familiar with medieval
Scandinavian languages. In addition, Professor of Old Icelandic Stefan
Einarson was very open-minded about the possibility that Kensington was
genuine" (p. 95)
So, Jan, how about admitting it when you're proven "ded" wrong? How about
swallowing your pride for once, eh?
In addition, I've found the following bibliographic reference:
Thalbitzer, William Carl, TWO RUNIC STONES, FROM GREENLAND AND MINNESOTA,
Smithsonian Institution Miscellaneous Collections 116/3. [A translation of
TO FJAERNE RUNESTENE FRA GRONLAND OG AMERIKA, Danske Studier, 1946-1947.]
In this runological study, Thalbitzer compared a west Greenlandic stone
with the KRS, and found significant resemblances between the two. Aware of
the controversies with the KRS, he preferred, in this article, not to take
a clear position in support of the KRS, but he leaves open the possibility
that it is genuine.
I hope that now you can see the error of your ways, Jan, and will admit
so in public...
Respectfully,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- Specializing in factitious editing
of other people's posts since 1997 -=O=- [24]http://www.io.org/~yuku
You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell HolmesIn these 2 articles (combined) I bring up some technical details about the use of umlauted runes in the KRS. Yes, many of these discussions went into some highly technical areas dealing with medieval runes in general. All the objections of our critics were answered in detail. Conclusion: KRS is the real thing.
Subject: Re: Kensington Stone & S. Williams: debunking went wrong?
From: yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 1997/08/18
Message-ID: <5tag1m$n8j$1@trends.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.history.medieval,soc.history.what-if,
soc.culture.nordic,sci.skeptic
Lennart Regebro ([22]lennart.regebro@stockholm.mail.telia.com) wrote:
: [23]yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
:
: >Lennart Regebro ([24]lennart.regebro@stockholm.mail.telia.com) wrote:
: >: [25]hmccullo@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote:
: >:
: >: In WRITING during the 14th century?
: >
: >And how do you you think we would have known this otherwise? Were you
: >thinking about ...a Time Machine?
:
: Ever heard of lingustics? Doesn't matter, the Ä and Ö signs still prove
: that KRS is a fake.
Lennart,
You're obviously wrong about this. This objection has been
answered many times in relevant literature, as all your other
objections. So you should get informed before you try to reinvent
the wheel in such an inept fashion.
Nilsestuen (1994) writes on p. 80 in regard to o^ (umlauted o):
Of the 13 obituary notices shown in _Obitarium
Nestvediensis_, dating from the 14th c., six or seven begin
with an o^ which is practically the same as in the
[Kensington] inscription.
Further, he quotes from Holand (1932):
Inasmuch as we find there was no standard form in the 14th
century for the o^, but find it written both with and
without interior lines, and also with and without dots above
... there can be no legitimate objection to any of these
forms.
As has been already pointed out to you and others in this thread,
the "mythical genius peasant forger" should have known A GREAT
DEAL about medieval epigraphy, and must have kept up with the latest
scholarly journals? Because, further on, Holand says:
Very few examples of 14th-century paleography were published
until about 1900. ... The supposed forger had no means of
knowing how these Latin letters were written in the 14th c.
unless he were a specialist in Scandinavian paleography.
So this is what I mean by the fantastic scenarios of our
misguided KRS debunkers...
About x^ (umlauted a) Nilsestuen says on p. 90:
The use of a dot or other small sign above the root vowel to
express the umlaut became general in the 14th century. This
manner of writing x^ was used 25 times in a manuscript of
the old _Vestgoetalag_ from 1280.
Also, on p. 96, Nilsestuen cites Seip (1954) about contemporary
Oslo Chancery manuscripts using these symbols. I guess you were
simply unaware of these?
And, he cites Thalbitzer (1946-47 and 1951, 26) who pointed out
the use of o^ (umlauted o) in the Kingiqtorsuak, Greenland,
inscription ca. 1333. This is even more important BECAUSE HERE IS
A CONTEMPORARY AND UNDOUBTED RUNIC INSCRIPTION FROM GREENLAND
that has many parallels with the KRS.
So which Scandinavian expert in these threads was it who claimed
that no such inscriptions exist? Why wouldn't the gentleman in
question come out and admit HONESTLY that HE WAS WRONG?
Yours truly,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- Specializing in factitious editing
of other people's posts since 1997 -=O=- [26]http://www.io.org/~yuku
You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Kensington Stone
From: yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 1997/08/21
Message-ID: <5ti398$9ie$1@trends.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.history.medieval,
soc.culture.nordic,sci.skeptic
Lennart Regebro ([22]lennart.regebro@stockholm.mail.telia.com) wrote:
...
: Well, give me findings of runic material with umauts, then.
: (Yes, Yuri claims these exist. We'll see).
Geez, Lennart, what more do you want me to give you? I've ALREADY GIVEN
YOU THIS! Why is it so difficult to explain to Scandinavians about the
runes? What kind of an educational system do you have down there, I
wonder?
So here are parts of my recent post again:
(Just today Hu objected to one of the examples I've given. He is probably
right, but THIS WAS JUST ONE OF MANY EXAMPLES AVAILABLE.)
[begin quote]
Subject: Re: Kensington Stone & S. Williams: debunking went wrong?
Date: 18 Aug 1997 21:49:42 GMT
Message-ID: <5tag1m$n8j$1@trends.ca>
...
About x^ (umlauted a) Nilsestuen says on p. 90:
The use of a dot or other small sign above the root vowel to
express the umlaut became general in the 14th century. This
manner of writing x^ was used 25 times in a manuscript of
the old _Vestgoetalag_ from 1280.
Also, on p. 96, Nilsestuen cites Seip (1954) about contemporary Oslo
Chancery manuscripts using these symbols [ADDITION: Including x^. These
manuscripts are dated from 1370].
[end quote]
Also, on p. 90, Nilsestuen cites the use of the dotted "a" in that
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT Kingiqtorsuak, Greenland, runic inscription, ca. 1333.
HERE IS A CONTEMPORARY AND UNDOUBTED RUNIC INSCRIPTION FROM GREENLAND that
has many parallels with the KRS. I guess our sainted experts from
soc.history.nordic just never happened to hear about it, eh?
So why do I have to explain to you guys that x^ (umlauted "a" with both
one and two dots) is an umlauted rune? So this was one dotted rune that
I've already given, but you just managed to miss it?
Nilsestuen gives many more examples of various early dotted runes in his
book. (There are 5 of them in KRS, and all five are attested in
contemporary Scandinavian manuscripts.) If you really insist, I will post
more of them for you later, so that our esteemed Scandinavian experts can
finally learn the simple fact that UMLAUTS WERE CERTAINLY USED WITH RUNES
IN THE 14TH CENTURY!
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- Specializing in factitious
editing of other people's posts since 1997 -=O=- my webpage
is at [23]http://www.io.org/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. GalbraithI'm aware of course that, at this time, the general concensus on this subject among historians is negative to the KRS. But this should not prevent critical scholars from looking into the evidence and deciding for themselves. One of my goals in writing these articles was to demonstrate how this vaunted "scientific consensus" around the KRS was formed. In my opinion, this consensus was really based on inertia, laziness, plain academic sloppiness, brazen ignorance, willful distortion by some, and the willingness of the horde of the uninformed to follow certain academic misleaders, not to say con-artists. This consensus is really not worth the paper on which it is typed.
Here are the latest additions to this subject from summer of '98.
This is one of the articles that started the latest round of discussions in May '98. It deals with the circumstances of the discovery of KRS.
Subject: Re: Kensington Stone
From: yuku@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 1998/05/22
Message-ID: <6k4b6h$760$1@titan.globalserve.net>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.history
Tom,
I will agree with you that there are a number of inconsistencies in
various accounts of the discovery of KRS. This is only to be expected in
such a situation. Full investigations were conducted by the Norwegian
Society of Minneapolis, and then by the Minnesota Historical Society, only
in 1908-9. The affidavits were probably composed even later. So mistakes
in recollections are to be expected.
I think these things are quite comprehensible if you realise that this was
primarily an oral culture down in Kensington. These people didn't keep
diaries or take notes. Many of these farmers were illiterate. What you see
here is an unhappy interface between the lawyers and city sleekers who
descended on Kensington years later, and a bunch of semi-literate farmers
whose memories were fading. This is how mistakes could occur easily.
But may I remind you that if we would blame anyone for such poor
documentation of the find, the blame should certainly attach itself
primarily to the professional scholars who were negligent in not bothering
to investigate the discovery when it was still fresh out of the ground.
And may I remind you also that these contradictory details that you've
been focusing upon are not really significant for the purpose of
concluding if the inscription is genuine or otherwise. Let me explain.
Let's take, for example, the exact location of the spot where KRS was
found. Was it 700 feet from the house? 300 feet from the house? Of course
it would be nice to know for sure. But how would this reflect on the
authenticity of the Stone?
Let's look at this logically. Either KRS is genuine or not -- these are
the two theories under consideration. If a fake, it must have been "found"
in some spot. If authentic, ditto. Therefore, it was most likely found in
one spot -- on either theory. So what is the significance of these
divergent accounts, really? Unless we suppose that the "Conspiracy of
Forgers" first planted KRS in one spot, uncovered it publicly, and then,
dissatisfied with the location of the old spot, reburied it again in a
different spot, and then uncovered it again -- unless we buy this rather
unlikely scenario, the significance of divergences in various accounts of
KRS original location is exactly nil. To the contrary, if there were
indeed a "Conspiracy of Forgers" in Kensington, MN, we would have expected
them to have presented a "scenario of discovery" that had no
inconsistencies whatsoever. Everything in the story would have been
perfectly in harmony. The fact that things are not in harmony -- if
anything -- should tend to indicate that KRS is authentic.
Exactly the same reasoning as above should apply to the discrepancy in
regards to when KRS was found.
I don't think there was anybody else at the site of the discovery except
Ohman and his son Edward when the Stone was unearthed. There was an
incident with an axe that Edward told everybody about for years to come
(when he ruined the blade of the axe by trying to free the Stone from the
roots of the tree while his father went to call Nils Flaten; his father
got terribly mad at him for this) that tends to lend a good element of
verisimilitude to the story.
Of course it is the inscription itself that should be the best proof of
KRS authenticity. In its investigation report, the Committee of the
Minnesota Historical Society concluded:
"1. It [the inscription] cannot be the work of some unlettered amateur of
the present day. 2. It is either the uncritical record of an exploration
of the 14th century, or the fabrication of a _consummate philologist_
familiar with the dialect of Vestgotland in the 14th century." [underline
mine] (MHSC 1915, pp. 266-67, as quoted by Nilsestuen, 1994, p. 21)
No consummate philologists were to be found anywhere in the vicinity of
Kensington, MN for many miles around. May I remind you that this was a
small rural community where everyone was known to everyone else. Thus, KRS
is authentic.
I don't expect that hardworking poor farmers are natural liars by
disposition. My habit generally is to believe people unless I have reason
not to. I don't see "sinister conspiracies" under every tree as a rule.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- [19]http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku UPDATED
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. DickAnd here's my review of the book by T. Blegen that the critics of KRS love to cite in their support. I was not impressed...
KRS: Blegen's dishonesty
Author: Yuri Kuchinsky
Date: 1998/06/17
Forums: sci.archaeology, soc.history, alt.conspiracy
_________________________________________________________________
Greetings, all,
Well, now prompted by so many urgent recommendations from various parties
for me to read Blegen, I went out and got his book out of the library (T.
Blegen, KRS: NEW LIGHT ON AN OLD RIDDLE, St. Paul, 1968). My conclusion?
I'm saying it quite simply: Blegen is a shameless and pathetic liar,
besides being a hopeless obfuscator with clear paranoid tendencies. Happy
now, Mr. Weller?
Here's Blegen's Big Lie that he repeats a number of times in the book:
"When it is realized ... that authoritative runologists, with no
dissenting voices, have pronounced the inscription modern ..." (p. 109)
And again in a somewhat milder form:
"Since we are dealing with an inscription that runologists say is
fraudulent..." (p. 36)
These are barefaced lies, of course. On p. 116 of his book, Nilsestuen
gives a list of at least 20 highly eminent runologists from the best
Universities around the world who supported KRS. Nothing more needs to be
said about this...
So now we understand where Donna is coming from. Yes, if the Big Boss of
Minnesota archaeologists Theodore C. Blegen hisself lies through his teeth
like this, what do you expect from his various lesser minions?
It would be quite a waste of my time to go through Blegen's book in great
detail and to point out his innumerable red herrings, obfuscations, and
paranoid fantasies. His general thesis is that a Far-ranging and Sinister
Conspiracy planted the Stone under the tree a few years before it was
found. None of this is spelled in too much detail of course. Just a lot of
most ridiculous insinuations are produced, and he considers this enough
basis to accuse honest and poor working class people of lies and criminal
activities. This sort of elitism is beyond contempt.
Nevertheless, if I still had any doubts about KRS, I could have written
about many details in Blegen that clearly support KRS authenticity. He did
manage to include some useful historical evidence in his book, I suppose,
in between the times when the paranoia got the best of him.
For example, we now know why Prof. Breda, the first professional scholar
to pronounce his views upon the Stone, failed so miserably to investigate
this find adequately. It turns out that he _actually had no doubts_ that
the Stone was found under a tree, and that the tree was pretty old! His
rationalization for this professional failure of his, for failing to
describe the tree? He was actually of the opinion that some fantastic
"prankster" (who also happened to be a soldier in the US Army -- go and
figure out how he knew all this!!!) from the time when the area was still
being settled by Scandinavians, ca. "30-40 years" ago (p. 167), just up
and decided to play such a prank -- to inscribe the Stone and to bury it
into the ground!
"There were white people in that county before it was settled in the early
sixties. ... Now suppose that among these soldiers of Uncle Sam there was
a young Swede who had enjoyed a good school education in the old country."
(p. 168)
Thus spake Prof. Breda... Ahem...
Obviously, our quite fantastic "young Swedish soldier" just was sure like
hell that the Farmer Ohman will be there 40 years later to look for the
Stone in the middle of some desolate bush...
I suppose such idiocy just may make sense if one would include into this
"Breda Hypothesis" also that Ohman must have been guided by the Space
Alien? The conspiracy deepens...
And here's a nice little side-glance adding to KRS being authentic. John
K. Daniels, a Minnesota sculptor, examined the Stone carefully in 1955.
He pronounced that "the carving had been done with "sure deft strokes"",
and that the job may have "taken about two hours" (p. 118). Sure as hell
this was not some hopeless amateur "prankster". A sculptor should know
about such things...
Blegen reports that four photos were taken of KRS back in 1899 (p. 122).
Unfortunately nobody bothered to take the photo of the tree. Because
nobody at the time could really doubt that the Stone was found under that
tree, since there were so many eyewitnesses, and so many reliable
descriptions of the tree in question? I guess so. It was only many years
later that deceitful debunkers like Wahlgren started to try to cast doubt
on the size of the tree.
Blegen accuses Ohman of being the master-mind of this "forgery". Such
idiocy makes one wonder about Blegen's head. These are the depths of
deceit and irrationality that the sainted Professional Archaeologists will
descend to if the defending of their turf be at stake...
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- [18]http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku UPDATED
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!"
-- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"This article deals with the weathering of KRS. There are no problems there, in spite of frequent misrepresentations by KRS critics.
KRS weathering
Author: Yuri Kuchinsky
Date: 1998/07/21
Forums: sci.archaeology, soc.culture.nordic
_________________________________________________________________
Some posters here are again suggesting that the weathering of the KRS is
somehow not right, that there's something wrong with the weathering.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
Since KRS was apparently lying buried in the ground face down for many
centuries, the inscription on the face of the stone is quite well
preserved. Nevertheless, some runes may be possibly missing from lines 2
and 3, as there's a substantial spalling on the stone in this area. In
fact, many commentators think something _is_ missing from line 2.
Take a look at:
http://thehistorynet.com/HistoricTraveler/images/1997/0597_1l.htm
Some experts, like Dr. Winchell, when they first looked at the
inscription, were quite surprised that the state of preservation was
apparently so good, and Winchell recorded his first impressions in his
notebook. Later, after some careful investigation with the microscope, and
after further studying the physical properties of this particular rock
(greywacke) Winchell came to the conclusion that KRS is authentic.
Here's this from my old post:
"Three nationally known geologists (including glacial geologist Dr. Warren
Upham and Minnesota State Archaeologist Prof. N. H. Winchell) ... were so
impressed by the evidence of the weathered appearance of the inscription
that they voluntarily wrote opinions favouring its authenticity." (Holand
1940, 130) He quotes Prof. W. O. Hotchkiss, State Geologist of Wisconsin,
"The inscription ... must have been made at least fifty to a hundred years
ago and perhaps earlier." (Nilsestuen, p. 27.)
[end quote]
Later on, some rather dishonest critics, like Stephen Williams, the author
of fairly notorious volume FANTASTIC ARCHAEOLOGY, that contains other
numerous errors, used the technique known as _selective quoting_ to
distort the views of Dr. Winchell. They only quoted his initial opinion
that the inscription looked "fresh" at first glance, but rather curiously
neglected to cite his considered opinion.
There's no doubt that Dr. Winchell was an active supporter of KRS
authenticity, based on the weathering, and on the circumstances of the
discovery which he, himself, investigated very carefully.
Well, this is all that needs to be said on the subject. I appeal to the
recent very biased critics, please get yourself informed about the
circumstances of KRS discovery.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- [19]http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku UPDATED
We should always be disposed to believe that that which
appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the
Church so decides -=O=- St. Ignatius of LoyolaThis is my review of the latest article by Prof. Knirk that appeared in SCANDINAVIAN STUDIES. It is full of the usual misrepresentations and dishonesty.
From: yuku@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Kensington Stone and Prof. Knirk
Date: 19 Aug 1998 19:34:54 GMT
James E. Knirk, University of Oslo, KENSINGTON RUNESTONE (a review of
Hall's and Nilsestuen's books) in Scandinavian Studies, Winter 1997.
This review is really quite silly. It is filled with arrogant ad hominems,
preconceived notions, and is rather dishonest.
Prof. Knirk's snobbery, arrogance and elitism are quite unbelievable.
Surely this sort of an attitude must be the worst the University system
has to offer, expressing all the dregs of elitist intolerance of the
academe in a nutshell. His arrogance is expressed constantly towards
"amateurs" who dared to intrude into the Sacred Precincts where only the
True Professional Runologists can enter.
This is total and complete nonsense of course. The innumerable idiocies
and dishonesties of such "true-blue runologists" like Wahlgren, the KRS
chief opponent, are legion... and they are all well documented. Take the
plank out of your own eye, you, assorted academic hacks, before trying to
dump on the "amateurs"...
So Knirk spends much of his review putting down Holand, Nilsestuen and
Nielsen because they are "amateurs". What nonsense is this? And according
to this pathetic snob, these "uppity amateurs", that he's trying to put
down into their place with such contempt, constantly "fail to understand"
the evidence, and even each other!!! He states, for example that
Nilsestuen is "unable to evaluate Holand", and Hall cannot understand
Nielsen... This sort of idiocy may pass for balanced scholarship, I
suppose, but only among the True Believers...
He finds a few microscopic faults with KRS here and there, and tries to
blow them out of proportion. Nilsestuen, whose book, it must be admitted,
contains some rather speculative background material, provides him with
much fodder for arrogant "corrections", none of which, incidentally, have
much to do with KRS itself.
His star piece of evidence has already been pummeled to death by Mr.
Weller in sci.arch. These are the three erroneous lines in Nilsestuen's
book dealing with poor Prof. Rygh's contribution to the Minnesota
Historical Society KRS Committee. A simple minor error, by all
appearances. Yes, they've found their Big Sin of Nilsestuen here...
Knirk's review is also quite dishonest. Most of his tricks are transparent
and will be quite familiar to the readers of these Usenet discussions.
Again we have the same old selective quotation trick, used so frequently
by KRS opponents. Yes, he uses the same old "Winchell gambit", also used
previously by Stephen Williams (the author of FANTASTIC ARCHAEOLOGY),
another bungling "KRS debunker", and quotes selectively from Winchell's
notebooks re: KRS weathering. Quoting selectively to one's own advantage
is a major academic sin and amounts to obvious deception. So this is a
good indication of Knirk's dishonesty, bias and prejudice.
In actual fact, there are no problems whatsoever with KRS weathering.
Knirk also uses the same old strategy, as used by Blegen, of simply
asserting the desired result often, categorically and loudly -- and
expects to be taken on his word. He thinks he's done enough by merely
stating "the inscription is modern". Trust me, I'm The Expert... Of course
he also commends very warmly the dishonest Prof. Blegen, yet another
incompetent debunker. Birds of a feather stick together.
Here's another dishonest assertion of Knirk. He says that right from the
beginning "experts in older Scandinavian languages" found that "many of
the rune-forms" on KRS were not medieval.
This statement is quite dishonest on two counts. First, he uses obsolete
scholarship to validate his questionable thesis. Because early on, it was
simply _not known_ that many KRS rune-forms were medieval. Later they were
attested adequately. So he plays word games here to create a false
impression in the reader. Second, he actually has very little to show in
the way of substantiation for his assertion that many of the rune-forms on
KRS were not medieval.
Yes, dear friends, there's also a tiny amount of substance hiding in
Knirk's spiteful and biased screed somewhere towards the end. He does
claim to find some faults with a few specific KRS runes. So let's take a
look at them. Here are his complaints.
He claims that there are some problems with external attestation of the
following KRS runes.
Kensington x-shaped rune for a, with an extra small branch in the upper
right. Runes with "some resemblance", as he himself admits, were found by
Nielsen. Nearly exact parallel is found on the Greenlandic stone. But
according to Knirk, the parallels are not quite right. Of course, we're
supposed to take his word for it... Nonsense.
Also he complains about the attestation for X with umlaut for a. According
to him they do not stand inspection? I say this is extremely tendentious.
Also he apparently has some problem with using p for d? Again, this is
highly questionable. His other beefs are quite microscopic.
All I can say is that his premise is completely wrong-headed and false.
How can any serious scholar expect that an inscription made by
non-professionals somewhere in America in 1362 will confirm totally and
completely to some preconceived notions of purity as formulated by a
biased academic snob in the 20th century?
It is well known that standards of spelling in the vernacular in the 14th
century were virtually non-existent. Spelling and orthography variations
were the rule rather than exception. Inger E Johansson already gave many
examples of such variations.
And all Knirk can find are only a couple of minor problems with
attestations? And on this basis the inscription is modern? This is just
too absurd for words...
I would say, if anything, KRS runes are _too well attested_ externally by
now! Just about every rune has been attested. KRS uses 12 irregular and/or
rare runes, and only 9 "standard" runes. Some minor problems may exist
with one or two out of the 12 aberrant runes. These problems can hardly
serve to invalidate the Stone. Only in Knirk's dreams...
At the end of this artilce, I'm reposting some very relevant quotes from
Nubkhas. This will serve to illustrate how irregular and shifting the
standards of writing were in the middle ages.
Knirk is a big joke. His ill-tempered harangue -- quite to the contrary of
what he intends -- in fact may serve well to illustrate the total
bankruptcy of such establishement hacks in their efforts to debunk KRS.
And his dishonesties are very good indication that he's truly desperate in
his hopeless task.
Regards,
Yuri.
From: nubkhas@aol.com
Date: 1998/07/11
Forums: sci.archaeology
A good document to compare the KRS to is the "Oaths of Strassburg", which
spells out the terms of an 842 AD agreement between Charles the Bald of
France and King Louis the German. The oath sworn by Louis the German
begins: "pro d(e)o amur & pro xpian poblo & n(ost)ro commun salvament,
dist di en avant in quant d(eus) savir & podir me dunat. si salvarai eo
cist meon fradre Karle...."
This is one of the most interesting texts I have ever come across. The
linguistic forms used in this "oath" don't conform to those of classical
Old North French or to Old South French (Provencal). The language forms
used in this text is about as far from either of these languages as the
language of the KRS is from "classical" mediaeval Swedish. Yet no one has
ever questioned the authenticity of the "Oaths" because of the
circumstances of their preservation--together with the contemporary oaths
in a proper German for that time which Charles the Bald and Louis the
German's army swore. But if the Romance version of the "Oaths" had been a
lonely stone found on some peasant's farm in the roots of some tree,
someone would have surely said "This is obviously the work of some
ignorant peasant who was trying to imitate Old French, but who knew it so
badly that he mixed in words from Old Provencal, Latin and even modern
French. In fact, he was so ignorant that he even wrote the same word
differently twice in two instances!" The debate would still be going on,
even though ALL these things really occurred in the manuscript of the
"Oaths of Strassburg".
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell HolmesHere's my proof that KRS is authentic.
From: yuku@globalserve.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.culture.nordic
Subject: why KRS cannot be a forgery
Date: 13 Aug 1998 00:31:10 GMT
Greetings,
These discussions are now becoming a little silly. The most outlandish and
baseless rumours are being dragged in with a serious face by some posters
who are obviously scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to salvage the
archaeological establishment's tarnished reputation. "Somebody said that
two Swedes bought a chisel many years ago somewhere near Kensington" --
and therefore this must be a forgery? Don't you people see how silly this
sounds? Don't you have any self-respect? What kinds of historians are you?
Don't you see that such pathetic "evidence" can only be counter-productive
in the end? If anything, this will ultimately serve as evidence _for_ KRS
authenticity -- if this is the best that can be done on your side!
Archaeological establishment in recent decades obviously felt a strong
need to get rid of KRS, to sweep it under the rug. The Stone is just too
uncomfortable for them. It opens up all kinds of unwanted avenues for
further investigation -- not too good for an average self-content and
rather lazy academic historian. Lots of academic reputations may be
tarnished somewhat...
And so they've regularly and consistently employed unethical means to
achieve their desired end. The result is history and the scientific method
denied. This is the betrayal of science.
Read Blegen's book. His argument is fallacious from the word go. Over and
over again he repeats dishonestly this mantra of his, his clear
misrepresentation of how "all expert runologists" see KRS. "Since we are
dealing with an inscription that runologists say is fraudulent..." (p. 36)
He constantly implies that expert runologists, in one voice, declared KRS
unauthentic. But this is quite simply a lie.
Blegen's reasoning is plainly fallacious. Here's he again with his oft
repeated mantra,
"In recent times expert runologists analysing the inscription have
declared it to be "modern", as did Breda and Curme in 1899 and Flom in
1910. If so, one or more "modern" persons must have devised the wording
and chiselled the symbols." (p. 102)
Please examine his reasoning above. "_If_ KRS is a forgery, _then_ we must
find the forger". False premise creates a fallacious argument right from
the start. And on he goes to weave the most paranoid of conspiracy plots,
gratuitously slandering any number of innocent people to fill this
pressing need for a forger.
I've already given my proof of why Kensington Rune Stone cannot be a
forgery.
PROOF:
There are only two possibilities to choose from.
A) KRS is authentic.
B) It is an extremely sophisticated forgery produced by a highly competent
medievalist; s/he had to be both a philologist, as well as an epigrapher.
No such medievalist was ever found anywhere close to Kensington MN, ca.
1898, or before. All the locals were very well known to each other. There
were no mysterious strangers in the area.
Thus the answer is A. KRS is authentic.
Now, I would like to add some more substantiation to my proof.
My proof is based primarily on the complexity of KRS inscription. Many
people don't realize just how complex the inscription is. This is because
most of the arguments in Hall and Nilsestuen, as reported in sci.arch,
have been focusing primarily on showing that the inscription is consistent
with the existing body of medieval runic inscriptions. Their goal was to
demonstrate that all KRS runes are attested elsewhere.
Of course, I accept the results of these investigations by Hall, Nielsen,
and Nilsestuen. They have now proven that KRS is in line with existing
evidence, with the known evidence.
But my goal here will be different, because I will show how these KRS
runes are _not known_. They are not well known now, and they were even
less known in the 19th century.
So I will consider two items. The unusual KRS runes, and the numerals.
THE RUNES
Of course any forger who wants to forge an ancient inscription will likely
work primarily from the existing reference materials. In other words, such
forger would have been likely to use only known runes. It is extremely
unlikely that a forger would have been foolhardy enough to try to invent
new runes. This, after all, is a sure way to get caught.
So why are the runes of KRS so unusual then? Here's a summary from Hall
(1982, p. 25),
"The runes for f, d, r, h, I, s, t, b, m, l appear on the Kensington Stone
in virtually their "classical" shapes and functions ... Rather than the
five standard runes for o, k, n, a, y ... the Kensington Stone uses five
more or less aberrant runes. In addition to these, the Kensington
inscription manifests seven more characters, for e, o^, a^ [I use ^ for
umlauts], p, g, j, and w for phonemes (distinctive sounds) which existed
in medieval Swedish and Norwegian but found no representation in the
16-rune futhork."
So what does this mean? It means that KRS uses only 9 regular runes, 5
irregular runes, and 7 more irregular runes of another type. So this
stacks up as 9 regular, and 12 irregular and/or unexpected runes.
Do I need to remind readers here that the main reason KRS was first
rejected by the academic establishment was precisely because of these
weird-looking (to them) runes? These professional runologists, both in US
and in Scandinavia had never seen such runes before!
But _all of these runes_ have been discovered in obscure medieval
manuscripts and inscriptions, and attested gradually as 99 years went by.
So how could this "mythical KRS forger" know that these unusual runes will
be discovered in later times? Psychically? Are we getting into Psychic
Archaeology stuff here, or what?
And what a coincidence that the whole three of these "weird-looking" runes
were later described on a runestone from Greenland? Yes, I know Tom K. has
been trying to minimize this very uncomfortable (for him) fact, but the
truth must be faced from time to time, Tom.
THE NUMERALS
Numerals used on KRS are very unusual. So much so, that many professional
Scandinavian scholars 99 years ago, like Prof. Breda, could not even read
them at first.
At this time, all doubts about the external attestation of these numerals
have been put to rest because of hard and painstaking research by Holand,
Nielsen, and others.
But even as far back as in 1958, the famous Scandinavian scholar Prof.
Wahlgren, the main KRS critic, was still raising vociferous objections
about the numerals, and using them as part of his "proof" that KRS was a
forgery!
Here's a quote from Nilsestuen (1994, p. 106),
"...Wahlgren (1958, 117-19) was still claiming that the date 1362 could
not have been written in runes."
Also, he adds that Wahlgren was still objecting in 1958 that the KRS
numeral 10 could not be authentic (p. 107). Birgitta Wallace, another
mainstream scholar, was claiming the same still in 1985. This numeral 10
has been since authenticated by Nielsen.
So how could the "mythical KRS forger" know that these unusual numerals
will be discovered gradually in later years? Psychically?
CONCLUSION
It is completely clear now that, as an absolute minimum, we must conclude
that a person who could "forge" KRS must have been a highly competent
scholar with at least a PhD in both medieval Scandinavian philology, and
runology.
(The much more realistic conclusion of course should be that such a
forgery could not have been done at all at that time. Period. But let's
stay with our "absolute minimum", for argument's sake.)
So where was such a person in Kensington, MN, a hundred years ago?
So far our ham-handed debunkers found Fogelblad, the man who actually died
before KRS was discovered. Fogelblad had a University education, you
see... He was a minister once...
But, sorry, folks, we're not looking for a hard-drinking ex-clergyman with
a giant personal library of maybe half a dozen volumes. We're looking for
a PhD in both medieval Scandinavian philology and runology, with access to
a library of hundreds of specialized publications -- since this is what
would have been necessary to accomplish a forgery of such sophistication.
Well, my friends, until such time as you find such a one in Kensington MN
hundred years ago, all your "Fantastic Archaeology", and half-baked
conspiracy theories will remain just that...
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku UPDATED
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?I think the matters are pretty clear. KRS is authentic.
