Kensington Runestone

[SelfSim]

The Kensington Runestone is a (primarily) sandstone artefact unearthed in Kensington Minnesota USA, around 1898. It has inscriptions on two sides of it which approximate several old Scandinavian runic alphabet characters which, in turn, has led to an extensive contemporary saga entailing a purported Viking presence in North America at/around 1362. This date clearly predates Columbus’ commonly quoted discovery date of 1492 (of the Bahamas, actually).

There is significant mainstream geological/mineralogical evidence refuting the authenticity of its carving date of around 1362. There are also significant linguistic inconsistencies concerning the message it displays.

To me, the artefact represents a testimony to the degree of willing acceptance pseudoscience has in today’s culture, regardless of any so-called ‘truths’ about what the discovery represents. I think it has much intrinsic merit as piece of intriguing artwork, also.

I’m interested in how CF folks view this one.
Comments welcome.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Kensington Runestone is a (primarily) sandstone artefact unearthed in Kensington Minnesota USA, around 1898. It has inscriptions on two sides of it which approximate several old Scandinavian runic alphabet characters which, in turn, has led to an extensive contemporary saga entailing a purported Viking presence in North America at/around 1362. This date clearly predates Columbus’ commonly quoted discovery date of 1492 (of the Bahamas, actually).

There is significant mainstream geological/mineralogical evidence refuting the authenticity of its carving date of around 1362. There are also significant linguistic inconsistencies concerning the message it displays.

To me, the artefact represents a testimony to the degree of willing acceptance pseudoscience has in today’s culture, regardless of any so-called ‘truths’ about what the discovery represents. I think it has much intrinsic merit as piece of intriguing artwork, also.

I’m interested in how CF folks view this one.
Comments welcome.

View attachment 281506

Yah sure, you betcha. Dat's da real deal. Uff da!

 

[SelfSim]

Yah sure, you betcha. Dat's da real deal. Uff da!

I must admit I found Scott Wolter's commetary quite entertaining. Paraphrasing him (just a little):
'The carver may have been a Knight's Templar .. or, being 'scientific' .. (because I have a degree in geological sciences) .. maybe even a Cistercian monk .. or their trainee'

 

[SelfSim]

I think Wolter might be vying for Erich von Daniken's crown of Chief Archaeo-pseudoscientist in their all-time hall of fame?

 

[Occams Barber]

I think Wolter might be vying for Erich von Daniken's crown of Chief Archaeo-pseudoscientist in their all-time hall of fame?

I recall, in my early 20s, watching Chariots of the Gods on TV just for the blarney of it.

Then we had Uri Geller mysteriously bending spoons.

Them were the days...

OB

 

[SelfSim]

I recall, in my early 20s, watching Chariots of the Gods on TV just for the blarney of it.

Ya .. I'll have to admit he had me hooked with the 'Chariots ..' book, so I just had to buy the follow up: 'Return to the Stars'. I think the latter succeeded in convincing me he was full of it.
I recall I may have even bought 'Miracles of the Gods', which I could never get more than a chapter or two into (before throwing up .. as a youth).

Then we had Uri Geller mysteriously bending spoons.
Them were the days...

Ahh yes .. the mighty Uri!
IIRC, he seemed to feature in the same quality TV shows who also exposed us to the notorious 'Mr Methane' .. but I may be conflating the two due to aging memories(?) .. at least the latter could actually strut his stuff!

 

[Occams Barber]

Ahh yes .. the mighty Uri!
IIRC, he seemed to feature in the same quality TV shows who also exposed us to the notorious 'Mr Methane' .. but I may be conflating the two due to aging memories(?) .. at least the latter could actually strut his stuff!

I'd never heard of Mr. Methane so I looked him up in Wikipedia - talented and disgusting all at the same time.

After reading his Wiki entry I have added a new, must-do, item to my Bucket List:

<<<<The World Farting Championships in Finland>>>>
​

OB

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You don't need anything fancy to realise it is a hoax. It was found by a guy of Scandinavian descent, in an area heavily settled by Scandinavians, and it is an extensive carving telling a story - while runestones are usually short epigraphic texts or otherwise more pictures than text. In addition the suspicious style of the runes, reminiscent of certain reconstructions current in the 19th century, and the conclusion is obvious.

The funny thing is, at the time most people thought the Norse presence in the New World was entirely legendary and the Vinland saga invented from whole cloth. This was prior to the Norse sites found in Newfoundland. If they had been, the Runestone's tale would have been substantially different, and then I am sure more fancy methods would have been necessary to investigate it.

 

[SelfSim]

You don't need anything fancy to realise it is a hoax. It was found by a guy of Scandinavian descent, in an area heavily settled by Scandinavians, and it is an extensive carving telling a story - while runestones are usually short epigraphic texts or otherwise more pictures than text. In addition the suspicious style of the runes, reminiscent of certain reconstructions current in the 19th century, and the conclusion is obvious.

Also, as the Wiki entry suggests, the 1883 notes of this Swedish immigrant, 'Edward Larson' implicate him as a possible candidate carver/author .. (which is an interesting connection).
In the several hours of listening to the various commentators on the topic (and reading), I haven't heard anything of his story ..

The funny thing is, at the time most people thought the Norse presence in the New World was entirely legendary and the Vinland saga invented from whole cloth. This was prior to the Norse sites found in Newfoundland. If they had been, the Runestone's tale would have been substantially different, and then I am sure more fancy methods would have been necessary to investigate it.

It looks as though those 'fancier methods', (scanning electron microscope, etc), may have been given a shove along by the likes of Scott Wolter around the year 2000, when he first started advertising himself as a 'Forensic Geologist'(?), whilst it appears that the discovery of hard evidence of the real Viking presence in L'Anse aux Meadows (Newfoundland) by Helge Ingstad and Anne Stine Ingstad, was from 1961 to 1968.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's clearly a hoax, but I'm fond of it. Much like the Crystal Skull of Doom.

 

[SelfSim]

It's clearly a hoax, but I'm fond of it. Much like the Crystal Skull of Doom.

Yes .. the Mitchell-Hedges skull is an extraordinary work of art, considering its estimated 1930s carving date. The inferred technology used (ie: 'a diamond-coated rotary burring and cutting tool of minute dimension') sounds like the forerunner to modern dentist drill technology(?)
(Interestingly, the dots carved in the Runestone apparently display smooth conical depression marks, consistent with a metallic, pointed chisel tip .. not easily constructed in the 14th century).

Still, the entire skull product is an extraordinary testament to human ingenuity .. firstly in finding such a lump of quartz like that, then in carving it .. and then in the artisan keeping it quiet whilst watching the fun-and-games following the announcement of its so-called 'discovery'.
The mind boggles when considering the intensity of the apparently impish mind-set behind this one(?) It may have just been more of an outright technological challenge for the carver however .. (ie: perhaps he was just a 1930s 'tecchie' mindset, maybe).

The Runestone, I think, seems to have had tones of more of a political impetus behind its construction, rather than the satisfaction of perpetrating an outright hoax/assault on the record of history, per se(?) This largely social motivation would certainly resonate nowadays with the anti-intellectualist mindset and would also explain the phenomenon of turning a blind eye to the obvious pseudoscience of it all(?), IMO.

 

[SelfSim]

Interesting lecture is here which takes a look at the social culture in the 1890s timeframe in the Alexandria (Kensington) district, from a Runestone-centric perspective.
(Goto the 14:00 minute mark for the key background).

What this guy is elaborating on, is what I meant by 'had tones of more of a political impetus' in my post above. Perhaps not so much political' .. more social I guess.

 

[Occams Barber]

No discourse on Great Fakes & Hoaxes Of Our Time is complete without reference to the "Missing Link" - Piltdown Man.

Discovered in 1912 and, finally, fully debunked in 1953, Piltdown Man is a stain on the reputation of paleontology and a godsend for Creationists. Using this single gross example of scientific fraud Creationists have had the means to credibly assert, for all time, that fossils are fake, and evolution is totally devoid of credibility.

OB

 

[SelfSim]

No discourse on Great Fakes & Hoaxes Of Our Time is complete without reference to the "Missing Link" - Piltdown Man.

Discovered in 1912 and, finally, fully debunked in 1953, Piltdown Man is a stain on the reputation of paleontology and a godsend for Creationists. Using this single gross example of scientific fraud Creationists have had the means to credibly assert, for all time, that fossils are fake, and evolution is totally devoid of credibility.

I see that example as a triumph of the science developed over the intervening period between its 'construction', and its diagnosis of being a fraud.

We've learned, from such incidents, the importance peer review plays in the process. Wolter, for example, seems to have evaded the discomfort of formalised peer review of his multitude of claims over his years as a popular media story-teller .. von Daniken was also caught out .. as was Uri Gellar.

IMO, the process is actually strengthened by these unwilling participants.

If it ain't peer reviewed, it ain't yet objective reality.

 

[Occams Barber]

I see that example as a triumph of the science developed over the intervening period between its 'construction', and its diagnosis of being a fraud.

We've learned, from such incidents, the importance peer review plays in the process. Wolter, for example, seems to have evaded the discomfort of formalised peer review of his multitude of claims over his years as a popular media story-teller .. von Daniken was also caught out .. as was Uri Gellar.

IMO, the process is actually strengthened by these unwilling participants.

If it ain't peer reviewed, it ain't yet objective reality.

I agree.

It was a dig at the attitude of many uninformed Creationists.

That's why I added the

OB