A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Dojo

7/21/2016

I'm going to keep this short, because life is short and I don't see much utility in expending a lot of energy on this issue.

As I wrote yesterday, Scott Wolter communicated to me that he was no longer interested in participating in my upcoming class. He told me in the email that it was because Jason Colavito would also be involved in the class (here is Jason's take). Given that Colavito would be participating at a different time and discussing totally different topics, it seemed like a strange decision to me. For that reason, I chose to let Wolter be the one to explain it if he cared to. It didn't take long for "Hutton Pulitzer" to show up on my blog and demonstrate, again, his aversion to factual accuracy. "Hutton Pulitzer's" comment provided information about Wolter's decision that I did not. So now it's a topic for discussion.

Scott Wolter decided not to participate in the class because Jason Colavito was also participating.

The alert reader will have noticed my use of quotation marks around "Hutton Pulitzer." As several people commented on yesterday's post, the language used by "Hutton Pulitzer" is distinctly un-Pulitzer-like, being largely devoid of typos, lacking the USE OF ALL CAPS, and written in more-or-less readable English. I have no way of knowing for sure, but it is plausible that "Hutton Pulitzer" was actually Scott Wolter in disguise.

Whether or not "Hutton Pulitzer" was Pulitzer himself or Wolter in a Pulitzer mask, my feelings are the same: good riddance. Team XplRr has passed my tolerance threshold for absurdity.

I'm a professor at an R1 university. I have a PhD. I do real archaeology and I teach students how to do real archaeology. The Forbidden Archaeology course is designed as an exercise in evidence-based critical thinking and communication. It exists to demonstrate to students that we have mechanisms for discerning credible from non-credible explanations of the human past. Not all ideas we have and stories we tell about the past can be correct, so how do we figure out which ones we can throw out? As I've written several times, the lack of a falsification mechanism is one of the hallmarks of pseudo-science. Holding ideas up to evidence-based scrutiny is what archaeologists do. If you're not doing that, you're not doing science. Forbidden Archaeology is designed to help students learn how to critically evaluate competing narratives about the past.

For a class like this to work, there has to be a free flow of ideas and information. Period. The title of the course is tongue-in-cheek: in my book there really is nothing that is "forbidden." As long as we have some mechanism for measuring the credibility of ideas and evidence, there's no reason to be afraid of examining any claim about the past. When some ideas or pieces of evidence are put "off limits," science begins to break down. It's okay to have vigorous disagreements, but at some level you have to agree on what constitute "facts" and "evidence." Even in a dojo, where combat arts are learned and exercised, there are rules to be followed.

When I talked to Wolter earlier this summer, I thought we had a meeting of the minds about the goals of the class and what we'd be doing. My intent was to have Wolter help us have a good, aggressive discussion of the Kensington Rune Stone, an object that remains enigmatic to this day. The students would have prepared themselves for Wolter's visit, and my hope was that they could experience some really interesting firsthand interactions with someone who has spent a lot of time and effort developing and defending his ideas about the stone.

I made it clear to Wolter in our phone call that I had no interest in having Pulitzer involved in any way. In my judgement, Pulitzer's history of misrepresentations and legal threats makes him unsuitable for interactions with my students. Based on my own history of interactions with Pulitzer, that's a pretty easy call to make.

But it appears now that when you're talking to Wolter you're also talking to Pulitzer (perhaps literally). So there's really no way around it: whether Pulitzer speaks for Wolter or Wolter is pretending to be Pulitzer, it's monkey business that has no place in my classroom. What's next? Demands to remove all the brown M&M's? No matter how I look at it, I cannot now imagine a good interaction with the Pulitzer-Wolter show. It's pretty weak sauce, and I'm no longer interested. The Wolter visit is off the table. What they decide to do with their partnership is none of my business, and that's the way it's going to stay.

I'm looking at other options for discussing different facets of the KRS. I've heard from several interested people already, and I'm considering several approaches that will let me meet the educational goals of the class. I wish the Wolter scenario would have played out differently, but it's just absurd to me that an invited guest (and/or his uninvited business partner) would attempt to exercise control over my syllabus. I have never misled anyone about the goals and content of this class. Forbidden Archaeology is going to be fun and educational for all involved. I will work as hard as I can to make that happen. Wolter and Pulitzer won't be a part of that. Moving on.

That's about all I have to say about this situation at the moment. I'll keep you posted as I move forward.

On a different note, I spent my morning working on this sculpture of a crow. I'm posting an "in progress" picture because I think it's looking pretty good so far. I may enter it in the state fair.

Oh wait . . . maybe the crow is related: "Nevermore" . . . (thanks, Hartman Krug).

49 Comments

Peter Geuzen

7/21/2016 11:52:43 am

I guess it will have to be Scott who calls off the engagement and when he does I hope he prints the epic pleading for reconciliation that will come from Jovan.

Pablo Raw

7/21/2016 11:55:19 am

Surprise, surprise. So they keep accusing the academic community of cover up, etc. and when they have the opportunity to confront it they just run away not just using the weakest excuse but also accusing you of trying to do something dishonest.

GEE

7/21/2016 12:18:53 pm

Well said Andy, and I wish I was a student in your classroom., someone who puts so much enthusiasm and care into the subject, as well as, what your students get from the information, is my idea of the perfect way to learn.

Joe Scales

7/21/2016 12:46:17 pm

Given the withdrawal by Wolter, perhaps your bird of choice to memorialize this post should have been a chicken...

Hutton Pulitzer

7/21/2016 01:58:44 pm

Interesting to see "you called off" Scotts engagement, when in fact Scott called it off. Laughable. In CASE YOU DON'T know it's me writing then here is the sample....LOL Here is two hours of Scott addressing YOUR proposal.

Would history be recorded the same way if it had to stand up to the rigors of a legal trail? Could the findings of anthropology and archaeology withstand a trial by jury? Would history be viewed and taught the same way? What is one of North America's most controversial archaeological discoveries was put on trial to determine if it was a hoax or a real historic artifact? Which side would win? Where would the most compelling evidence come from? Would it be considered pseudo-science? Or would forensic science and the scientific method win the debate once and for all.

Listen in as Explorers, Researchers and Authors Scott Wolter and J Hutton Pulitzer put the Kensington Rune Stone ON TRIAL. #GoXplrr #WolterPulitzer #ScottWolter #HuttonPulitzer #FightForTruth #TrueHistory

http://wp.me/p1TaCe-14d

Andy White

7/21/2016 02:05:59 pm

Thanks for the invitation, but I'm going to pass. I'll b at the grown-ups' table if you need me.

Jason Colavito link

7/21/2016 03:22:32 pm

He's spamming my blog with commercials for his podcast, too. It looks like he's hoping we'll send traffic his way.

Hutton Pulitzer

7/21/2016 03:32:43 pm

Andy, when you assemble your panel for the opposite side, might I suggest an open web forum via a video link. Each will present their information and case and it will be documented in real time and all questions asked and cases presented. That way anyone can see and evaluate for themselves in an open forum which once filmed it not edited. Agreed? And as far as traffic from Colvalito? Yes, Jason- we can expect the typical 3 to 8 plays as a result of your site.

Andy White

7/21/2016 05:31:37 pm

Why are you still here? Don't you have accomplishments to fabricate and TreasureForce costumes to make?

7/21/2016 02:08:01 pm

I was really looking forward to this open type of dialogue- and you were straight up with them. To have one speak for the other....I thought we left that in grade school. You can not cry wolf, then when given the chance to stand up to that, use drama to back away- shows a fear, not strength.

Clint Knapp

7/21/2016 03:59:42 pm

Andy,
I said it on Jason's blog just now (only caught up on this stuff briefly before work today), but it bears repeating here: I'm sorry it didn't work out, and that you have to restructure that segment of your class around all this foolishness.

Thanks to a professor friend of mine, I know the hard work that goes into class prep and what it takes to change up a schedule when a guest speaker drops out. You could have had several good sessions around discussing Wolter's presentation alone.

Damn shame it had to get Pulitzered. Best of luck finding a workaround, perhaps with a speaker who's less of a dramatist.

Andy White

7/21/2016 05:36:40 pm

I appreciate the sentiment, but it really won't be a big deal. There are plenty of people willing to talk about issues related to the KRS. I'll just need to do some additional work to shift things around a bit. It comes with the territory. And who knows- it may even work out for the better.

Peter Geuzen

7/21/2016 06:20:47 pm

Since you are still covering the topic and using one of SWs books for the class, why not seek out a guest speaker replacement that will take the counterpoint to SWs stuff. I can't say I'm following KRS too closely but from what I've read recently, Harold Edwards, Ph.D., P.G., seems to be a candidate for NO DRAMA (get it, haha).

Andy White

7/22/2016 06:41:00 am

That's the route I'm exploring now. The exercise will be valuable for the students no matter which positions they must present and defend.

GEE

7/21/2016 05:30:40 pm

J. Hutton Pulitzer does not play well with others in the sand Box... he's like that little kid that needs attention. Nog die how or why he got involved In your invitation to Scott. Maybe he's mad he wasn't invited?

7/22/2016 01:10:41 am

Nice crow.
Some representation of ruffled neckfeathers would go well with that stance i think.

Andy White

7/22/2016 06:43:01 am

Thanks. I just got the lower legs on yesterday right before the photo, so I'm finally able to look at the posture. I would like to fill out the neck and the body a bit more, and the wings definitely need to be longer.

John (the other one)

7/25/2016 08:29:36 pm

Gunn,

You didn't answer Harold's question. How did you date the stone holes? And, did you compare the size, shape, etc to old world examples?

Otherwise, they sound exactly like the other stone holes described besides being a slightly different geometry except they weren't cut deep enough to break the stone off or the top layer of stone was already cut.

It seems like you are working from the assumption that these are Norse Medieval stone holes, and this is a medieval dated KRS so how can I prove that, and not from the perspective of hmmm I have some strange objects here what questions can I ask myself or others to figure out the who, what, where, why, and how of them.

You mention a massacre site, are there bones?
You mention an axe, has the iron been tested to see if it comes from Scandanavia, or at least Europe?
Yes, the affidavit is useless. Any discussion or word of mouth from a person is pretty well useless people have a vested interest in being a part of "history" especially if it is: happening near their home town, involves their religious or political leanings, or makes me feel important.

John

7/25/2016 08:30:48 pm

Misfire!

Gunn link

7/22/2016 07:02:31 am

Andy, in the blog heading:

As long as we have some mechanism for measuring the credibility of ideas and evidence, there's no reason to be afraid of examining any claim about the past. When some ideas or pieces of evidence are put "off limits," science begins to break down. It's okay to have vigorous disagreements, but at some level you have to agree on what constitute "facts" and "evidence."

Andy, I have personally seen where an idea or piece of evidence was attempted to be put "off limits," which I recognized as an acute breakdown in the process of science. I'm talking about the lowly, and lonely, medieval stoneholes here in MN...those mimicking their medieval cousins back in Iceland, for instance.

Andy, to the scientific world, the academic world, the professional world, these dozens and dozens of medieval stonehole rocks up here in this region are like poison...but they are not poisoning any well of truth. Rather, they have become the glue holding the pre-Columbus, Norse history together up here. (I sincerely hope that our science-based friend, Jason Colavito, does not continue to believe that these stoneholes are the byproduct of DNA-based Scandinavian forgetfulness.)

I'm curious about something, Andy. What kind of mechanism for measuring the credibility of my ideas and evidence about the proposed "Norse Code-stone" would you, personally, have in mind? Or does the mechanism become an issue of peer review? If that is the case, where are my peers...my would-be "evaluators" and critics? Who are they? For the most part, they do not exist, which is why science becomes even more important in my present situation.

But, what good is science, then, if something as simple to understand as a medieval stonehole is so eagerly overlooked? Both the Norse Code-stone I found and the KRS are intimately consumed by the collateral proximity of their admirers, these seemingly lowly stoneholes.

For an attempt at peer review, if you will, I recently wrote an extensive article about medieval stoneholes in the Norwegian American Weekly:

http://www.norwegianamerican.com/featured/in-defense-of-the-kensington-runestone-stoneholes/

I also wrote an article about medieval waterways in this Upper Midwest region, and this item about the Norse Code-stone, with attending photos:

http://www.norwegianamerican.com/opinion/in-defense-of-the-kensington-runestone-a-code-stone/

I contend that the concept of "forbidden archaeology" is very real, as evidenced in my lack of progress in having the Norse Code-stone site professionally evaluated. In the meantime, I am trying to figure out who my peers are. Perhaps they are some of your future students, Andy, future believers in science-based medieval Norse stoneholes--the glue holding this very "non-fringe" history together up here.

Andy White

7/22/2016 07:17:21 am

Hi Gunn,

Thanks for the comment and the offer. The students will be writing blog posts on various topics. I would love to set one or two of them off on the issue of stone holes, especially since they also figure into Wolter's ideas about the KRS that they'll be reading about. I'll put you in my notes as I'm reworking the KRS section of the course, and hope that you'll be willing to work with me and my students to talk about your ideas (and answer the challenges that I hope I can get them to develop).

Mike Michlovic

7/22/2016 12:28:10 pm

Andy, I have a few comments regarding the notion of prehistoric Norse settlement in the upper midwest. First, archaeologists are not ignoring the evidence. This matter has been discussed literally for almost a century. I have done archaeological field work in the Red River drainage of Minnesota and eastern North Dakota and in Minnesota’s west-central lakes district for the past 40 years. This includes a 2010 survey of Swift County, Minnesota, where Gunn claims there is some evidence of Medieval Norse activity. We found close to 50 sites, many along the Pomme de Terre and Chippewa rivers, but all were prehistoric Indian or settler period sites. If there are Medieval European sites there, why can’t archaeologists, who find lithic scatters from the activity of a single family over a couple of days, find a settlement of explorers from Europe? Where are the refuse piles, the hearths, the house pits?
I have personally tested several presumed Norse sites. One was identified by an amateur who took aerial infra-red photos of a field and claimed there was a “Viking” settlement near Ulen, Minnesota. My crew and I shovel tested the entire field and found nothing but water-logged soil (probably the reason for the patterning on the infra-red photos). Another nearby site was supposedly a “Viking” long house where I was asked to help dig (this was around 1979). We found modern-era table ware, which my host insisted could have been from the Middle Ages, along with a piece of cast iron with the word ‘Cleveland’ clearly embossed—a broken fragment from a wood-burning stove. About 15 years ago I tested the AVM Stone site (near the Kesnington Runestone find) where runestone enthusiasts were convinced there was a Norse settlement. Three archaeologists tested the 1-2-acre site for a full day with no results. And by the way, archaeologists from the University of Minnesota also tested Runestone Hill several times, I believe in the ‘60s and ‘70s, with no results.
In sum, over the past 100 years there have been repeated archaeological tests of supposed Norse finds in Minnesota. None have been positive. The stone holes are historic in age by any reasonable evaluation of the documented evidence. And this is to say nothing of the more or less universal rejection, over and over, of the authenticity of the Kensington inscription itself. As for the geological evidence that the runestone is authentic, the evidence and arguments for that claim are entirely unconvincing.
A final comment: I have often been cautioned by my colleagues about getting involved with the Runestone issue. Threats and insults are common, as archaeologists from the Twin Cities discovered after testing at Runestone Hill. In my own case, the former president of my university told me after his retirement that he would receive letters from people demanding I be fired for my refusal to accept the Runestone. Our local museum also received the same, although for all I know they could have been from the same person or persons. Around 2005 I gave an invited talk on the Kensington Stone in St. Paul, MN, to the Minnesota Archaeological Society. The next day my dean got an email about my presentation, suggesting I was a liar, and a disgrace to the university. You can understand why many archaeologists simply don’t want to be bothered. Aside from the fact that there is no funding for this type of work, anyone who gets involved is set up for some nasty interaction.
My apologies for the lengthy reply, but I just wanted you to hear the other side.

Gunn

7/22/2016 05:25:31 pm

Thank you, Andy. If the genuine medieval stoneholes up here can be likened to poison to the academic and debunking worlds, then waterways can be likened to what delivered the Norse poison. These two mixed together--stoneholes and recognized waterways--go far in explaining the reality of Scandinavian exploration in this region well ahead of Columbus's time.

I look forward to doing whatever I can to help in the understanding of stoneholes. Maybe a person or two will end up with a burning curiosity to see what a medieval code-maker purposely buried up here within a purposeful arrangement of stonehole rocks. (The Code-stone shows in miniature the arrangement of stonehole rocks on the nearby undisturbed ridge.)

John (the other one)

7/22/2016 07:47:57 pm

Mike M

Thanks for posting that. I have often wondered the perspective of someone in academia in MN familiar with the KRS. It seems like such a big deal to some people because of what it could or does prove but the reality of the situation is that even if it was real (which is doesn't seem to be) nothing would really change so what's the big deal.

Fringe folk seem to want to complain one way or another either the academic community are liars and cheats for not believing their crazy talk at face value or the academic community won't engage for not wanting to listen to their crazy talk or getting labeled as a liar or a cheat...

Gunn

7/22/2016 10:02:56 pm

Mike and John:

The issue might now become what each of you will do, personally, to explain the existence of more than a hundred stonehole rocks up in this region. The old, tired, flimsy idea about "blasting" leftovers is now seen as lame by anyone who has taken even a small bit of time to look into these authentic, medieval, American stonehole rocks...yes, like those found back in NW Europe.

There are three distinct groupings of evidences not to be overlooked related to Norse exploration up in this region: Scandinavian petroglyphs, medieval Swedish-appearing weaponry and other items made of metal, and numerous stoneholes in rocks.

Most important to the early, beginning study of stoneholes is the knowledge that they were not for mooring Viking ships in this region! Rather, most of them seem to be related to marking territory and waterways, possibly in association with attempted land up-taking...such as along the Whetstone River just across the border in SD.

The Norse Code-stone I found is located just a half-hour's drive from this already-known-about cluster of petroglyphs and stoneholes in SD, and again, these evidences are in this specific location for the simple reason that two waterways which begin at ocean sources merge here in this area. Seriously, what other reason could there be for choosing this specific, remote area to "land."

The Norse Code-stone I found is marking the Pomme de Terre River's discharge into the Minnesota River, which reaches farthest up into the Minnesota River's watershed than other river. Evidently, the Code-stone represents medieval Norse waterway surveying, and probably even attempted land claiming--and most likely well before the KRS entered the picture up here, assuming that exploration occurred first near the merging of these two waterways, and explorations up the Chippewa River to Runestone Hill and the ill-fated campsite happened later.

I will say that it appears that these early attempts at settlement came too early, in that this initial push at Norse explorations was interrupted by massive deaths from disease. In other words, whereas land ownership in Scandinavia became difficult for a time, resulting in faraway explorations and attempted land up-taking, this thrust far into America's interior was interrupted for a time, until the 1362 KRS party showed up.

By the way, I personally think Runestone Hill and its dozen or so stonehole rocks pre-existed the placing of the KRS there as a memorial. In other words, I think the KRS was likely left at Runestone Hill because the survivors thought Scandinavians would be coming back to the spot. But, why?

Mark L

7/23/2016 12:17:29 am

Gunn, perhaps it would help if you responded to the specific points Mike was making, rather than just repeating the same things over and over. He's said he's spent decades doing actual hard research and has found nothing - does he strike you as someone who's trying to ignore all this evidence? Is it possible that the stone holes aren't as ancient as you think?

John (the other one)

7/23/2016 08:31:42 am

I'm always interested in the most logical explanation for a piece, or series of pieces, of data in other words a trend. One seemingly out of place object does not a trend make. Several questionable objects in a similar area similarly does not a trend make. One might ask who gets to decide whether something is questionable or not, well that would be the scientific method or groups of people will to collaborate and ask a lot of questions.

To latch so strongly onto out of place objects that "prove" something has no place in the land of fact or reason and is indicative of underlying motives.

Andy White

7/23/2016 01:24:49 pm

In my conversations with enthusiastic supporters of pre-Columbian transoceanic contacts (other than the limited Norse exploration of the far northeast, which is uncontroversial), I always ask why there isn't "evidence" other than carved stones and isolated weapons and other artifacts. Under most circumstances, it's reasonable to expect that human behaviors leave patterned material traces that we should be able to identify. One good site with good artifacts in good contexts falsifies the hypothesis that People X or People Y weren't at a certain place at a certain time. While it's true that the material traces left by small exploration parties would not necessarily be easy to find (think about the sparse evidence left by the Spanish parties exploring the interior of the New World), it's reasonable to expect that someday, someone would find something that convincingly falsifies the null hypothesis. An intensive search extending over decades but producing not a shred of uncontroversial positive, physical evidence independent from the carved stones and lost weapons doesn't inspire optimism. In my opinion, it starts to feel a lot like the search for Bigfoot. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course, because you can't prove a negative. But it does beg the obvious question that I usually start with: what else have you got?

Gunn

7/23/2016 05:09:58 pm

Sirs, there appears to be a problem within the academic and scientific and professional worlds if representatives of the same are unable to successfully account for the many stoneholes in rocks up here in this specific region. I must contend that these stoneholes shouldn't continue to be ignored just because of past and present ignorance about them. It's easy to assume they mean nothing when one has the hidebound mindset that the French were the first Europeans into this area. But, one cannot say these stoneholes mean nothing, when the accuser hasn't even done due diligence to understand them. It’s improper to talk about stonehole evidences with limited knowledge; I’ve tried my best to help overcome this problem.

I have successfully helped to debunk the false notion that the dozens upon dozens of stoneholes are really just leftovers from the good ole pioneer blasting days gone awry. Okay, we now know late 1800's Scandinavians were definitely not forgetful about making stoneholes and forgetting to blast them, enmass! This false notion was popularized years ago by an "academic" here in Minnesota, and it was even carried forward by the esteemed blog host, Jason Colavito, a few years ago at his site. (Usually, Colavito is more astute then this.)

But, still, Sirs, the stoneholes must be accounted for. How will you do that? Will you ask an old-timer or two their opinions about stoneholes and then run with what they say, as though their singular opinions are scientifically meaningful? No...I hope not. Yet, that is precisely what occurred here in Minnesota in academically defining (via Tom Trow) the origination of these many stoneholes. Like, for the record? Well, that's old and wrong and stodgy and out, now, because that’s where being hidebound can hinder the process of possibly making new and important discoveries...by stifling the truth.

I hope you don't consider it rude of me to suggest that you should begin with a base of knowledge about these genuine medieval stoneholes, then you can rightly move on to better understand the many other viable evidences associated with early Norse exploration up here. Taken as a whole, the situation should not be likened to presenting out-of-place artifacts. The academic world might like to attempt to separate the evidences out from one another as meaningless, but some new facts of discovery are even now colliding with this oppressive desire by some to be so overwhelmingly dismissive.

For one example, the KRS message speaks about a campsite a day's travel north from Runestone Hill, by a lake with two skerries. Through old books (in this case, by H. Holand) and by studying old plats and google-earth imagery, I was recently able to discern that the Erdahl Ax was actually found on the west bank of a lake fitting the description in the message on the runestone. Yes, this Norse weapon of war was found four years even before the KRS was discovered, and it was found a foot and a half below a stump two feet across. Old Mrs. Davidson--one of the original landowners--went to the trouble of signing a legal affidavit telling the details of the discovery. I wonder, is her reputation any worse than Olof Oman's? Who will stand up to make fresh accusations against old, long-gone Mrs. Davidson? So then, what are the odds of finding this ax as a time-capsule exactly where the talked-about massacre probably occurred? Now, consider also that the Brandon Ax was given to an original landowner by a Native American only several miles away from this site on the west bank of Davidson Lake. That ax managed to stay above-ground for several hundred years, and it is nearly pristine.

It is only slightly distressing to find out that Scott Wolter doesn't believe the message on the KRS is true, either. In effect, he has become just another KRS skeptic...now gone a-whoring after coincidental numbers. He says he has "solved the inscription" and it’s all about allegory and Masonic numbers. Well, in my opinion as a “KRS message purist,” Wolter has effectively joined the ranks of other KRS message skeptics...such as yourselves, I guess. So be it, for now. I have no rancor...only a hope for your future open-mindedness and eventual enlightenment.

Harold Edwards

7/25/2016 03:48:26 pm

There are thousands of rocks with holes in them in Minnesota. Most of them date from the 19th and 20th Centuries. They are still being made today. Holes were not only made for breaking rock but also for exploring the rock and mineral resources of Minnesota.

The first quarry opened in Minnesota in 1820. Granite quarries opened about 1867. Granites were and are exported outside Minnesota. Rocks were quarried for dimension stone and road metal for use in building railroad beds and roadways used by horses and later automobiles. A good reference for turn-of-the-century practice is Bowles, Oliver (1918), The Structural and Ornamental Stones of Minnesota, U.S.G.S. Bulletin 663, Washington, 225 pages.

Certainly holes were made for blasting, but also they were made to use wedges to break the rock along planes. This technology was invented by the ancient Egyptians and was continuously used in Europe (and America) up to the present day. A newer technology which dates from the mid-18th Century is to use shims along side the wedges, sometimes called plugs and feathers. It allows a round hole. Here is great online tutorial and history of breaking stone in the United States:

http://www.stonestructures.org/html/quarry_methods.html

Here is a Youtube video of using plugs and feathers to split a granite block:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwPuXfp_WdA

This is also why you find holes along a straight line.

If holes in Minnesota are older than the 19th Century, how do you date them? As to medieval Scandinavian land claims: Where in Scandinavia are such holes used to mark land claims? In Iceland? In Greenland? These are the places where Scandinavians are known to have lived in 1362. If this method was used back then, there should be a plethora of exemplars.

Gunn

7/25/2016 05:33:44 pm

Thank you, Harold, for your sincere comments.

I will tell you a little story here. One day "out in the field" driving around this former Norse paradise of exploration, I came across a granite rock outside a rural museum, and this rock was supposedly possibly connected to either Indians or to medieval Norse explorers, as being a sort of fire-rock with a large hole in it the size of a baskerball! Well, I was a bit suspicious, so I asked where it had come from, and upon finding out, I drove out there to look around, if possible. So, near the finding spot, I saw evidence of quarrying granite. I have some great photos showing a perfectly straight line of perfectly round, small stoneholes--as you described, Wolter. A few large slabs were lying around, broken off at these perfectly round little stoneholes in a line. And, the amount of lichen on these worked slabs was incredible, making the stones appear very aged!

So, at the end of the story, I had seen exactly what you are talking about...pioneer-quarried rocks, in other words, "modern" stoneholes in rocks.

Now, contrasting these examples of early American machine-made stoneholes with genuine hand-made medieval ones is no longer a time-consuming problem for me. I can tell you quite confidently that the medieval stoneholes are generally about quarter-sized and several inches deep. However, there are exceptions. There are valid examples of hand-chiseled small-diameter stoneholes, too, both in MN and in SD. I have documented and photographed these rare examples.

Harold, the medieval stoneholes at the Appleton site are of the smaller-diameter variety, which are quite rare. Nevertheless, I visited and photographed a good example of one near Wilmot, SD, which is a short half-hour or so drive from where the Norse Code-stone is located. There are many genuine medieval stoneholes in rocks in this area around the nearby Whetstone River, and there are also Norse-appearing petroglyphs.

Harold, any stoneholes are dated by their individual characteristics. The very old ones are typically triangular-shaped because they are hand made, while the more modern ones are either perfectly round or large and star-shaped, etc. If you are interested enough, I have a very good collection of photos of stoneholes in rocks, many taken by myself. I have good examples of all varieties from different ages, and they are all distinguishable one from another as to which era they represent.

I will be happy to entertain any further serious questions from you, and thank you again for commenting.

John

7/25/2016 08:33:31 pm

Gunn link

7/26/2016 05:59:51 am

Johns, your collective skepticism is not persuasive in any way towards reconciling the truth about these stoneholes. If you had just kindly read my provided links, you would have quickly discovered that I had mentioned stoneholes like these up here, primarily in Iceland, but in Scotland and other places, too. My point is that there are easily recognized examples of like stoneholes in NW Europe, primarily in Scandinavia.

Also, I have answered the question about dating stoneholes, but I don't mind explaining further: Each stonehole can be analysed according to its own characteristics, and then it can be categorized as either medieval or "modern,"--which is a misnomer, since some machine-made stoneholes are over a hundred years old.

I said earlier that I have photographs of all types of stoneholes, and that each stonehole can be dated...what I mean by that is that the stoneholes can be dated into either of two main categories that we're dealing with here: medieval, hand-made ones, and modern, machine-made ones. There are exceptions, such as the ones made by hand by landowners in more modern times, for blasting for instance. However, I have already shown that "non-blasting" alone does not or account for the dozens upon dozens from medieval times.

Keep in mind, too, please, that many of these obviously very aged stoneholes presently exist at Runestone Hill, basically surrounding the spot where the KRS was found. These same identical stoneholes also accompany Norse-appearing petroglyphs in nearby SD, and they mark up the entire Whetstone River, marking out desirable sites, with springs, for instance.

Johns, I've done my due diligence in this, but you apparently haven't. I think your innate skepticism may be getting in the way of your perceptive abilities, if I may say so in a good spirit. As I mentioned before, it is no good to try to discuss these mysterious stoneholes without a good base of knowledge about them. So, you have some catching up to do before you again try to weigh me down with oppressive skepticism. But even so, ultimately, these stoneholes dating back to medieval days are "un-debunkable" because they are genuine.

The Norse Code-stone I found is a true story about medieval stoneholes concealing something purposely buried. I intend to try to prove this contention, and by professional means. I could use the help of others to accomplish this goal, and I think that eventually I will get some help.

John (the other one)

7/26/2016 07:23:03 am

Actually, I have gone to the urls you have provided and they again provide stories like the ones you provide here. There is little to no evidence. Are there measurements, side by side photos from Europe and America showing similarities, evidence of medieval sites near the stone holes?

The problem with stating that something is undebunkable is that you are proposing a theory without any real evidence, it is by nature debunkable and in fact has already been debunked.

All science is as a fringe theorist would say debunkable but that is just part of the scientific method. New theories are allowed to come along.

Joe Scales

7/26/2016 08:09:22 am

"You can understand why many archaeologists simply don’t want to be bothered. Aside from the fact that there is no funding for this type of work, anyone who gets involved is set up for some nasty interaction."

This is obvious from just a quick reading of Wolter's blog entries where he relentlessly attacks those who dare contradict his confirmation bias and proofs by assertion in regard to the KRS. It's no surprise that other proponents for authenticity tend to have an ethnic stake in the battle which blinds them to not only reason, but reality as well.

At some point, it is no longer productive to argue with them or give them a platform for their views. You cannot have discourse with those that embrace fallacy as methodology. To do so gives them the false impression that they matter.

Harold Edwards

7/26/2016 10:39:03 am

Gunn, from the article you linked above, “In defense of the Kensington Runestone: stoneholes:” “There is no doubt that they were hand chiseled, even by KRS naysayers.Native Americans had access to copper, but copper could not carve these stoneholes. Iron would be required, and the natives didn’t have iron. The medieval stoneholes are slightly triangular because it is not possible to make a perfectly round stonehole with a hand chisel. Later modern drilling could make perfectly round holes, and this is how old and new can be distinguished from one another.”

The notion that triangular vs round holes is an indicator of hand vs. machine made holes is plainly wrong aside from the fact that many if not most of the 19th Century holes in rocks in Minnesota and South Dakota (and Europe for that matter!) were in fact hand made.

A triangular hole is caused by two factors: poor technique in not properly rotating the bit and the geometry of the bit’s end. Chisel shaped bits tend to give triangular holes when the driller does not control the rotation of the bit. James and Mary Gage discuss the fabrication of triangular holes on pages 48-50 of their book: Gage, Mary E. and James Gage (2005), The Art of Splitting Stone: Early Rock Quarrying Methods in Pre-Industrial New England, 1630-1825, Powwow River Books, Amesbury, MA, 88 pages. (I cited their website in my previous posting.) Triangular holes can be made using pneumatic rock drills.

This problem was well known in the 19th Century. “During drilling the tool must be turned uniformly, as otherwise the hole may become rifled. By rifling is understood the tendency of a drill to cut a triangular hole instead of circular hole, which it strikes successively at one point or along a given line. With the straight-edge cutter the tendency to rifling is stronger than with any other form.” Page 644 in Ihlseng, M.C. and Eugene B. Wilson (1911), A Manual of Mining, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 723 pages. This problem is still acknowledged today: “Uncontrolled rotation can result in a stuck bit, but more likely it will result in a crooked or ‘out of round’ hole. A chisel bit will then drill a triangular hole; a cross bit will drill a five-cornered hole.” Page 101 in Australian Drilling Industry Training Committee (2015), The Drilling Manual, CRC Press, Boca Raton. Triangular holes are a vexing problem when splitting rock since the crack tends to veer off in the direction of one of the apexes. Here is a specification sheet for a modern carbide masonry drill bit touting the fact that the tip geometry “prevents the occurrence of triangular holes.”

http://miyanagaamerica.com/products/deltagon_bit/pdf/DeltagonBit_SDS_plus.pdf

The ancient Egyptians had a sophisticated masonry technology dating back thousands of years. They could drill round holes in hard rocks like granite. In the earlier period they used copper tools in their quarries. Page 225 of the Clarke and Engelbach book has a photo that shows copper quarry tools in the Cairo museum. Clarke, Somers and R. Engelbach (1930), Ancient Egyptian Masonry: The Building Craft, The Book Tree, Escondido, reprint of Oxford University Press edition, 242 pages. It is not the hardness of the metal that allows a steel (or copper) bit to drill rocks like granite. Steel is too soft to grind through granite, but the driller takes advantage of the brittleness of the minerals in the granite. Each stroke of the chisel shatters the granite at the point of impact. As the depth of the drilling progresses a long handled spoon is used to fish out the rock fragments from the bottom of the hole. In fact the drill tip in this case is usually rounded. A bladed chisel end would be inefficient. A good overview of this process along with an illustration of the tools can be seen on page 45 under “Blasting” in volume 4 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition (1910). You can view and/or download a copy on Google books.

Finding a large number of abandoned holes in an area probably means it was most likely a commercial operations. For safety reasons all the holes would be drilled before moving on to the blasting phase. Drilling holes in rocks was a common practice throughout the 19th Century including the period of the settlement of Minnesota. Therefore one must assume that these holes were from that time or later. If they are in fact Medieval, then the burden of proof is on the person asserting that fact.

Gunn

7/26/2016 04:36:17 pm

Thank you for the lengthy commentary, Harold. Unfortunately, most of it doesn't apply to the situation at hand up here in MN. I've tried my best to explain that a certain kind of stonehole up here often accompanies other Norse evidences, but you apparently want to ignore this in favor of saying all the stoneholes are modern.

There is no remaining burden of proof on me, Harold, though you may want to make it appear so. I've researched and written enough about MN and SD stoneholes that any burden of proof has been lifted, already.

I will say that one of my biggest difficulties at the dual-era stonehole site near Appleton, MN, was in determining that two different eras were clearly represented. I first realized that the small-diameter older-appearing stonehole rocks were from a different period than the others. Finding the Norse Code-stone last year made all the difference in understanding the other small-diameter stoneholes, once I figured out that the Code-stone was showing in miniature the same special arrangement of stonehole rocks on the ridge--this, hundreds of years before the other thirty or more stoneholes were made.

While visiting a museum near Glenwood last year, I discovered in an old pioneer black and white photo an image of a late-1800's surveying crew camped out in tents on a ridge-line very much like the one near Appleton, and a tent post was clearly seen stuck into a large hole in a rock. Again, this is from the same era as the many large, sometimes fancy stoneholes to be found at the Norse Code-stone site.

Harold, I know what the small-diameter stoneholes there are all about, as I've found and photographed other known medieval examples, and I know what the large stoneholes are all about, too. I have met any existing burden of proof and overcome it. You may no longer feel the need to question my credentials as a self-taught and self-proclaimed stonehole expert.

Additionally, I broke the medieval code showing where something is buried, as revealed by both genuine medieval Norse stoneholes, and by modern technology in the way of a deep-penetrating ferrous-only metal detector. A regular metal detector will not get a hit, which means whatever is made of iron or steel is buried quite deeply.

Yes, Harold, it appears that medieval Norse stonehole rocks were used to encode a burial spot, most likely related to waterway surveying...perhaps even associated with an attempted land claim. I wish you were more open-minded, Harold, about these troublesome yet authentically medieval stoneholes up here in this same region where the KRS was found.

Harold Edwards

7/26/2016 06:43:51 pm

Ahhhhhh I see.

You were just writing about triangular holes to confuse simpletons like me. You crafty devil, you! You don’t want us to get at your secret stash of holes near Appleton! Okay, I won’t go there.

Suppose we went somewhere else, to some hypothetical place in mid-America, Peyton Place. We went out into the woods near there and found two sets of holes: big ones and little ones, as you say. How do you know which ones are Old Norse and which ones are New American? The size? Do you measure the size? What is it? Your metal detector? What does that have to say? The arrangement of the holes? Something else?

Please keep it simple so even I can understand.

Gunn

7/29/2016 08:13:23 am

Harold, if you go back to square one here, you will see that I answered all your hurried questions. You, yourself, are choosing to see through the glass darkly.

Gary

7/22/2016 09:50:55 am

Andy, here's my view of this:
1. Wolter agrees to participate in your class
2. Swordgate occurs.
3. Wolter teams up with Pulitzer who hates you for destroying his fictional claims with science.
4. Flimsy excuse is concocted to keep Wolter from doing something reasonable with you.

7/23/2016 06:34:54 pm

in regards to Mike Michlovic's response- he has an article in the 'The Minnesota Archaeologist', 2010. It is titled: Geology and the Age of the Kensington Inscription. It is a must read for all who want to seriously study more sides of the question of the runestone. What I like so see, is his many given references. Some writers feel they do not need to do this, but I find it refreshing and a good research tool for further study.

Mike Michlovic

7/27/2016 12:22:52 pm

Regarding the discussion of stone holes, I think Harold Edwards is correct. The evidence I’ve seen, heard, and read about is that the holes were drilled in the settler period and into the 20th century in order to split rock. If you look at the foundations in many old abandoned houses in the Minnesota-North Dakota region, you will see basements lined with split rock. Sometimes you can even see the remnants of a hole drilled into split the rock. I’ve seen at least two instances myself. As I’ve mentioned before, I have also talked with one person who told me his family drilled holes in rock to split them or blast them apart. A bit of research reveals more about this issue. There is a series of articles written by Carl Zapffe in the Brainerd Daily Dispatch from around 1985 about “mooring stones” and the famous Sauk Center “altar rock” (Brainerd is in Minnesota lakes country, about 125 miles north of Minneapolis). Zapffe interviewed Olof Ohman’s son Arthur and was told that he (Arthur) drilled many of the holes around Runestone Hill for his dad. The reason so many are left unblasted is that the boys were told to get rocks ready for blasting that were too big to move, that is, to drill holes for dynamite, but later when dad came out, some of the stones that looked big to the boys were not too big to move without blasting after all. Also, Arthur said he wasn’t very good at chiseling out the holes so his ended up sort of triangular; he said you had to be pretty good at it to make the hole round. As for the “Altar Rock” Zapffe notes that the holes drilled into this large glacial erratic were not designed to support a canopy for a Catholic mass, but were placed in precisely those locations that would allow the rock to be split. Zapffe also reports that he interviewed others who told him about the granite business in Minnesota and how some people regularly split rock to sell to the granite company. On some days one could hear dynamite going off repeatedly as rocks were being blasted.

Gunn

7/29/2016 08:34:18 am

Mike, we sure are at opposite ends looking at stoneholes. You don't seem to want to leave any room for the possibly of real medieval Norse stoneholes, even though I'm willing to make room for the occasional un-blasted stonehole.

"On some days one could hear dynamite going off repeatedly as rocks were being blasted." I guess this might be considered an egregious example of nonsense, if offered as a replacement for all the many existing genuine Norse stoneholes up here. You are clearly not leaving any room for an open-minded approach to the study of stoneholes.

Mike, I am left to think that you, like Harold, already have your mind made up about the origination of these many stoneholes up here that in no way fit the pattern of using blasted rock, because of remote locations and for other reasons.

I have visited and studied the so-called Viking Altar rock a few times, and I have a page about it at my website. This rock is a very good example of a huge stonehole rock with multiple stoneholes in it, three slightly larger than usual stoneholes, and one small-diameter stonehole...like those on the Appleton ridge. Please visit my Altar Rock page and you may quickly see that it has a history going back to the earliest of pioneer days, and it was far away from any need for blasting.

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id4.html

Gunn link

7/29/2016 08:45:03 am

I forgot to mention that the Viking Altar Rock, or Sauk Lake Altar Rock, is marking Sauk Lake because of the ensuing Sauk River emptying into the Mississippi River. (Most of the other stoneholes mark rivers emptying into the Minnesota River.)

There used to be a fine spring several rods from this Altar Rock, until all the big trees were cut down. I have an abundance of information about this particular rock, in addition to many great photos.

I would like to turn both you and Harold into believers in medieval Norse stoneholes, Mike. Next, I would like to turn you both into believers in the possibility that a medieval Norse Code-stone is concealing history treasure.

nomuse

7/31/2016 09:17:58 am

Gunn --

What would you propose investigators _do_?

You repeat over and over that the holes exist. No-one denies it. But all you appear willing to do is advance speculations based on a presumption that they are medieval in origin. That's jumping a couple of steps at least.

None of these speculations rise to the point of hypothesis because none are falsifiable. You can draw an infinite number of lines through that point cloud, and it is fruitless discussing which is much attractive.

How about suggesting specific areas of investigation? Can you come up with any firm way to date the holes, or compare them in the required detail to other holes in order to properly sort them? Data is what is needed now. There is no gain to the academic community in joining you in more empty speculation.

7/31/2016 10:34:24 am

Also Gunn,

Where is the evidence of Norse exploration other than Minnesota? How did they get past Niagara Falls? Did they portage their long boats? Did they hike in from there? If they made it that far inland, it wasn't their first time, there would be stops along the way, evidence of camps.

Why would they get all that way to leave a cryptic stone as a land claim to an area that would have been incredibly hard to get to. Not to mention people already living there.

Please don't take this as an attack, as I and I'm sure others appreciate a differing view as well as your politeness.

But I've been a government and now a consultant archaeologist in Canada for years now and have done hundreds of small, medium and large scale excavations, specifically in southern Ontario near Lake Ontario, Lake Erie and Lake Huron. Not once have we found any evidence of Norse camps or Norse exploration. Don't say it's due to an academic bias or not understanding the evidence, because I would love to find such a unique site,my career would be set.

A few years ago at an excavation of a Huron village near Toronto, an iron axe piece was uncovered buried within a longhouse. The iron was European and contextually dated to around the year 1500 AD, nearly 100 years before known European contact in the area. Instead of everyone jumping to the conclusion that Europeans were here before we knew about (as there was no other evidence for that case) they scientifically investigated the artifact and determined it was from the Basque region in Spain. They concluded that the axe was most likely traded (or taken) from Basque whalers that were known to be on the east coast at that time. An iron axe would have been very valuable and was subsequently traded along the st Lawrence, eventually with a piece ending up in this Huron village.

http://www.canada.com/mobile/iphone/story.html?id=6833185

So you can see where other people are so skeptical of your stoneholes (most likely 19th century), non-contextual Norse artifacts (I know the lady swore it came from a tree root but that's not good enough, and if it is a genuine Norse artifact there are many unknowns about how it got there and when), and especially the KRS (which seems like nonsense to me, no offense).

You want people to come out and study your evidence, but who's going to pay for that? How do you justify that to a client, a university or the tax payer, knowing all of the above mentioned? Hope that helps with why other people are so skeptical and dismissive about pursuing your evidence.

Saying all this a Viking camp will probably be discovered tomorrow in Michigan or something haha :) (but it's highly improbable)

D

Gunn

8/6/2016 11:10:02 am

(I've been on a road trip to Bismarck for several days.)

Nomuse, I propose that investigators start paying attention to the stoneholes up here, instead of trying to explain them away.

It is not true that I'm willing to advance speculations based on a presumption that the stonehoes are of medieval origin. No steps jumped by me at all. First, I base much of my speculations on the obvious, which is visual. Then, some Norse evidences up here in this specified region of Norse activity are surrounded by or otherwise affiliated with these strange triangular-shaped stoneholes, made by hand and appearing very aged. For two quick examples, the KRS is surrounded by a dozen or so of these stoneholes, and Norse-appearing petroglyphs in nearby SD are in fact accompanied by these stoneholes.

Also, the stoneholes up here have already been adequately compared to some medieval stoneholes in Scandinavia, especially in Iceland. The stoneholes can possibly be dated by an analysis of mineral breakdown, but they are already somewhat dated by their very appearance, in both age and in comparison to those in NW Europe.

Lastly, nomuse, my speculations are not necessarily being considered by the academic community as "empty" speculation, because I do have some credible data and photos, and my findings are being found by more than a few to be credible...in opposition of your very personal insights.

Gunn

8/6/2016 11:56:48 am

D, sorry about the delay in answering; I've been to Bismarck looking for a submerged rock in the MO River with possible runes on it...smack-dab in Mandan country. (I think I may have found it.)

D, I think there were at least several medieval Norse expedition into this region, based on the available evidence, such as the fairly vast spread-out and viable evidences to be found within this region. I simply categorize the evidences associated with the general era of the KRS into three very distinct areas of study...stoneholes, petroglyphs, and metal weapons and tools.

I contend that there are a vast number of viable Norse evidences to see and potentially understand up here, if investigators would only not be so dismissive--often with a hidebound attitude. For instance, it is a nonsensical "academic" idea that the French were the first Europeans to arrive up here.

They got here by waterways, D, a Norse specialty at the time. Look at the Viking expansion into Russia. Why even question how they got here? They got here by boats, on navigable waterways. There were no impressive, multi-century log-jams preventing Scandinavians from getting here before the French.

Unlike Scott Wolter, I do not believe the KRS represents a land claim. However, I do think it likely that the party were interested in claiming land. No large claim, though. The Whetstone River in nearby SD is very marked-up with stonehole clusters which seem to indicate individual claims of land...though perhaps by monks, not necessarily by individuals.

I believe the KRS is what it claims to be: a memorial stone to ten massacred friends. Also, I think it likely that the location of Runestone Hill may have already been known about, which may be why the stone was left there. Perhaps the survivors thought others would return to that spot...for some reason, such as inland mapping.

I do not look at your comments or questions as an attack, though I have been attacked in the most hostile and miserable way on another blog in years past. Anyway, my skin is hardened.

I believe evidence of camps has been found, such as fire-steels. A few are in the Runestone Museum, with background information. Obviously, there were many camps. I believe I probably found a campsite a day's journey north of Runestone Hill, on the west bank of a lake with two skerries, where the Erdahl Axe was found under a stump two feet across a foot and a half deep back in 1894, even before the KRS was discovered. Much needed data gathering and compilation needs to take place regarding the many artifacts associated with the era of the KRS.

Good question about who's going to pay for the further study of all this. I recently heard back from the MN State Archaeologist saying she would help facilitate a professional dig at the "Norse Code-stone" site I've talked about here on this blog, if I can line up a proper archaeologist to license and perform the work, and the funding. She is willing to help rather than hinder me, which gives me a refreshing boost of hope.

No, D, the next surprising Norse (but not Viking) find will probably take place right here in good ole Minnesota...which is why Wolter should have stayed home more often. (Well, maybe not.)

7/31/2016 10:37:04 am

Pardon my grammar as well, typed on a phone.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Dojo

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories