A good example of you see what you want to see. And you didn’t answer my first question.
Remember that these people were into advertising. When they found that the name Iceland didn’t sell they named the next island they discovered, which was really covered with glaciers, Greenland instead.
So, are you saying that the vikings were in America for hundreds of years without leaving any trace, and then decided to build a massive stone tower that doesn’t look viking at all?
And then they hid for more hundreds of years before coming back to shoot Kennedy. No wonder people haven’t been able to solve it. Those Vikings are sneaky!
Of course the Vikings explored N. America. They had good reason to do so-they needed bog iron ore and timber (for ships)-neither of which were available in Greenland. The question is: how long did they stay and how far did they go. Most probably, they did get as far south as cape Cod-a site at a place called Follin’s Pond was found by an amateur archaeologist in the 1930’s (a man by the name of Pohl). As far as I can determine, Pohl’s work was never followed up (by university trained archaeologists), and so the questions still arise. There are any number of theories-one (by Prof. Horsford of Harvard) that they reached the headwaters of the Charles River in Boston-this claim has not been proven. When did the N. American voyages cease? probably by 1350 or so-the worsening climate made n sea travel from Greenland dangerous. Also, the Black Death hit Greenland around 1360-and probably half the colony died. The end of the greenland colony is no mystery-once the p[opulation had shrunk below replacement levels, the survivors either returned to Iceland or Norway…there is also evidence that some were abducted by English or Flemish pirates. That is why no human skeletons were found in the ruins of the houses-everybody who could had simply left.
Thje argument against it is that the discovery is not reliably documented and there are no other finds that substantiate it. It’s an anomaly at best. It can’t be proven true or false, and in the science game, that makes it false. I see no motive for a party going that far into the interior, via either the St Lawrence or Hudson Bay, and then venturing further inland to leave a carved stone whose inscription makes little sense. Clearly, Occam’s razor is on the side of hoax for the KRS.
Prof. Horsford, by the way, was the guy responsible for the statue of Leif Ericson being on Commonwealth Ave in Boston – precisely because he was convinced that the Vikings were there.
Was this Pohl the same Frederick Pohl who wrote about other pre-Columbian visitors (including Henry Sinclair, the ruins at Mystery Hill, and the Newport Tower)? He strikes me as sincere and dedicated, but his conclusions are, by and large, not believed by the professionals.
It’s Follins Pond. Frederick J. Pohl*, the one mentioned by Cal, worked in the 1950s.
An amateur making a claim does not imply that questions remain. It implies that amateurs are always amateurs.
The 19th century Eben Norton Horsford is a prime example of an amateur crank, with no training or expertise in archaeology. Again from Wikipedia:
All of these amateurs are at the same level as the amateurs who insist that Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare. Professionals show that they have no true evidence at all, and what they claim to be evidence isn’t. That doesn’t stop them. Which is why they are amateurs and always will be.
*Not the famous SF author, whose middle name is George, although you will find that mistake if you search his name.
Yes, perhaps. But unlike many other hoaxes, no one tried to get rich off it, and neither the finder nor anyone else ever confessed. If other discoveries appear then I’d say legit, but until then, it is too far, I agree.
I have given a lot of thought to those factors, and while I suspect it is a hoax, I also believe there must be a fascinating story behind what was a very sophisticated hoax. Too bad we will never know what that story “really” is, but I have written a longish short story that, well, tells a story. I’ll be offering it free soon, it’s called “Far To The West Of Vinland.”
It’s a mite suspicious that this Kensington Rune Stone just happened to surface in a community of Scandinavians, who wouldn’t mind seeing proof that their ancestors made it this far. And ones who just happened to have a book with a runic alphabet in it.
There are cother motivations besides filthy lucre. I’d be less suspicious of the KSR if it surfaced among a community of, say, Italians. Or Chinese.
An interesting, current book on the subject is Vikings in America by Graeme Davis.
I’m not particularly convinced by much of his speculation, but it’s a good overview of the subject.
Sure, but part of it was that they recognized the runes as writings, and very old. Italians and Chinese might have just shrugged and cut it up for a foundation. Maybe there were others, found in circumstances as you suggest, now destroyed.
Not to mention that North America was hardly “vacant” at the time. The vikings found themselves in conflict with the Beothuks in Newfoundland, and existing populations got denser farther south. Even if they found great resources elsewhere on the continent doesn’t mean that they could harvest them unmolested.