Andy White Anthropology
  • Home
  • Research Interests
    • Complexity Science
    • Prehistoric Social Networks
    • Eastern Woodlands Prehistory
    • Ancient Giants
  • Blog
  • Work in Progress
    • The Kirk Project >
      • Kirk 3D Models list
      • Kirk 3D Models embedded
      • Kirk 2D images >
        • Indiana
        • Kentucky
        • Michigan
        • Ontario
      • Kirk Project Datasets
    • Computational Modeling >
      • FN3D_V3
    • Radiocarbon Compilation
    • Fake Hercules Swords
    • Wild Carolina >
      • Plants >
        • Mosses
        • Ferns
        • Conifers
        • Flowering Plants >
          • Grasses
          • Trees
          • Other Flowering Plants
      • Animals >
        • Birds
        • Mammals
        • Crustaceans
        • Insects
        • Arachnids
        • Millipedes and Centipedes
        • Reptiles and Amphibians
      • Fungi
  • Annotated Publications
    • Journal Articles
    • Technical Reports
    • Doctoral Dissertation
  • Bibliography
  • Data

The Kensington Rune Stone: The Oldest "Native" Document in America?

6/14/2016

12 Comments

 
Once I'm awake at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning it's difficult for me to get back to sleep. So you can thank one of my kids for this blog post: an unwelcome early morning wake-up provided me an opportunity to start doing some homework on the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS).  We'll be discussing the history of analysis and interpretation of the stone in my Forbidden Archaeology class this fall during a unit on claims for pre-Colmbian transoceanic contact. If you've been following along at home, you know that Scott Wolter, a prominent advocate of the KRS, has agreed to participate in my class. I'd like to get him here to interact with my students in person, so I've started raising some travel funds: click here to contribute if you'd like to help make this happen.

Debate about the authenticity and potential implications of the KRS has gone on semi-continuously since the stone was first reported in 1898 (you can read reviews of the history of the debate here and here, among other places). As I'm in the habit of using my blog to help me organize my research, I'll probably write posts as I work my way through the debate.

This morning I read through the 1910 article by  Hjalmar Rued Holand in The Journal of American History (Volume 4, pp. 165-184, available here). The first thing that struck me was the title:
Picture
How could the KRS be an authentic European artifact and a "native" document? The last time I checked, the term "native" referred to a geographical association by birth (a person born in a place is "native" to that place). The immediate implication of Holand's word choice, I think, is that he thinks the KRS somehow legitimizes the idea that people of Norse descent are "native" to the area by virtue of a fourteenth century Norse expedition that he believes carved the stone and left it in Minnesota. It's possible I missed some nuance, as I read the paper quickly. 
The second thing that struck me is the similarity between the debates that were taking place in the first decade of the twentieth century and the debates that are still taking place today.  Then, as now, arguments about the stone's authenticity revolved around three main bullet points:
​
  • Improbability: how could a Norse party have journeyed that far into the interior of North America and left only a stone?

  • Runological correctness: are the runes and language on the stone "correct" for the mid-fourteenth century, or are they the work of a modern hoaxer?

  • Material characteristics: are the features on the modified and unmodified surfaces of the stone consistent with creation of the inscription during the fourteenth century?
Holand considers each of these in varying amounts of detail, concluding without reservation that the stone is authentic. The arguments about the runes and the geology are strikingly similar to recent treatments. Here is what he says about the geology (p. 179): 
"Another proof is the geological evidence shown in the weathering of the inscription , and in the physical changes in the region where the stone was found. This stone, being a Greywacke, is exceedingly hard, and decays extremely slowly, as is shown by the pronounced glacial markings on the back of the stone made several thousand years ago. Notwithstanding this durability the main part of the inscription presents the same ancient, mellow and weathered appearance as the untouched face of the stone. Some of the runes, however, encroach upon a calcareous incrustation which covers part of the stone. In this softer portion the characters are so worn down as to be almost unreadable. In marked contrast to these are the characters upon the edge of the stone which were scratched, when the stone was found, with a nail to dig out the dirt. After 11 1/2 years' exposure to the elements, these characters upon the edge of the stone still appear white and fresh as if cut today. This is an excellent illustration of how very slowly this hard rock decomposes. In order to have arrived at the weathered appearance of the main part of this inscription and the worn down conditions of the characters in the calcareous deposit, this inscription must have been made many hundred years ago."
As Scott Wolter has demonstrated, consideration of the runes and geology of the stone still provide grounds for discussion. Given the length of the debate about these aspects of the stone, however, I think it's reasonable to wonder if analysis of the intrinsic qualities of this single artifact will ever resolve to everyone's satisfaction the question of whether the KRS is a hoax or an authentic artifact related to a fourteenth century European expedition into the interior of North America.

As an archaeologist, the "improbability" question is of greater interest to me than questions of runes or geology. Human behavior leaves material traces. If the KRS was produced by a fourteenth century European expedition (Holand goes so far as to specify who he thinks led the expedition), I would expect that there would be some tangible traces of that expedition in addition to a carved stone (remains of campsites? European goods incorporated into Native American economies?). Those traces are not likely to be easy to find, however: we can anticipate that the residues left by a small, rapidly moving expedition would be very difficult to locate.  For the sake of comparison, consider the archaeology of early Spanish attempts to explore and colonize the Southeast. Hernando De Soto journeyed through the southeast in the mid-1500's with a small medieval army of about 600 people along with wagons, pigs, and horses.  De Soto's group (much larger, I think, than the party that most people envision would have been associated with a proposed Norse exploration of the American interior) left a very faint archaeological signature. The location of the short-lived coastal colony of San Miguel de Gualdape, occupied by 500 people for a few months in 1526-1527, has yet to be identified. The Mississippian village of Cofitachequi, visited by the De Soto expedition in 1540 and the Juan Pardo expedition in the 1560's, has yet to be identified based on positive material evidence (although it almost has to be the Mulberry site). The location of Fort San Juan, the first interior Spanish settlement in the interior of North America, was only recently confirmed to be at the Berry site in North Carolina.

While the traces left by Spanish expeditions are light, they aren't invisible. Is it possible that definitive evidence of a Norse expedition into the interior (other than the KRS) would be so light as to fly under the radar despite a century of scrutiny? It's a fair question.

I admit that my first reaction as I start to learn more about the KRS is a bit of disappointment: has the debate over this artifact really remained so static over the last 100 years? I hope not. I also find myself asking what else there is to go on at this point. Despite what the popular media tell us, archaeology is not primarily a game of singular "discoveries" like the KRS. It's about patterns, multiple lines of evidence, and putting in the hard work to understand how the past human behaviors we want to understand relate to the material traces we can observe and study. If the KRS is genuine, it's hinting at a pretty interesting story. But it won't be the only piece of evidence that can tell the story. With the main points of argument about the KRS apparently still unresolved after 100 years, I'd spend some effort pursuing other avenues if I was looking for positive evidence of Norse expedition into the interior in 1362.

I think Holand's use of "native" hints at the context of his advocacy of the KRS. That doesn't, in and of itself, mean he's wrong about the stone, however. His paper mentions several things I plan to look into further. And so it begins.
12 Comments
Gina Torresso
6/14/2016 07:06:07 am

Andy, I see you are on another quest. One, I am very interested in, cant wait to read more. Thank you

Reply
Joe Scales
6/14/2016 10:24:39 am

The calcite is actually the smoking gun against authenticity (along with the Larsson Papers showing a contemporary source for the problematic runes), as it would have dissolved in short order in the course of hundreds of years whether buried or exposed. Harold Edwards, who worked with Wolter at the time of his "scientific" study opines on this in much greater detail on current discussions on Jason Colavito's blog, along with cites to applicable studies. Edwards, like Winchell way back when, did not find the runes carved in calcite to be so compromised as Holand apparently did. Edwards also makes some rather damning allegations as to the manipulation of data on the part of Wolter in his KRS "research".

Professor Henrik Williams, one of the world's leading experts on Swedish runes gave Wolter the benefit of the doubt, and initially assisted him in working out the language of the runes. He came to regret it however, when he too came to realize Wolter's mendacity. Wolter's response to any reasonable criticism is to insult and disparage the critic and cling to proof by assertion; yet another fallacy in his vast arsenal.

Wolter's science has never withstood falsifiability nor proper peer review, and of course his Templar/Masonic/Grail theories are preposterous. His reasoning is circular, working backwards from the assertion that the KRS is genuine, and then accepting only evidence that will fit that scheme (confirmation bias). Science goes against him. History goes against him. Logic goes against him.

Reply
Andy White
6/14/2016 12:28:41 pm

I'm aware of the discussion on Jason's blog but I haven't gone through it in detail. It occurred while I was on vacation and I was determined not to get sucked in to reading on my phone rather than hanging out on the beach. I will circle back around to it, though, and read it carefully.

Reply
Mark
6/14/2016 06:12:40 pm

Andy, in addition to reading Jason's blog I assume that you will also take the time to read SW's blogs on the authenticity of the KRS. Joe's description of the events between Professor Henrik Williams and Scott is incomplete.

Joe Scales
6/14/2016 07:57:27 pm

Mark,
You are quite right. What I left out are the countless instances of pure defamation on the part of Wolter against Professor Williams. In fact, an entire blog post of Wolter's was dedicated to such malevolence. If you examined Wolter's evidence of "academic fraud" in that diatribe, or better put, lack thereof, you would see that Professor Williams wasn't the only one who gave Wolter well meaning, on point advice on his KRS work; and practically all of it was ignored. Wolter's thanks? Defamation, pure and simple. That's how Wolter repays those with more expertise who disagree with him.

I believe that what inspired that rant of Wolter's was that Professor Williams quite nimbly solved Wolter's Medieval Desert Mystery from his first season of America Unearthed. You can read Professor Williams' findings here:

http://files.webb.uu.se/uploader/267/Mustang%20Mountain%20Stone%20-%20release.pdf

Now after reading that, does anyone still think Wolter was correct with his show's conclusion that a 12th century Englishman somehow traveled to what is now Arizona and taught Native Americans how to build cave dwellings? If not, maybe they need to read the ArchyFantasy take:

https://archyfantasies.com/2014/09/23/a-12th-century-englishman-in-arizona-unearthed-america-episode-2/

But getting back to the riddle solved, what was Scott's response in addition to defaming Professor Williams on his blog? Did he reconsider his views in light of more credible evidence? No. He doubled down on his fantasy with none other than Pulitzer/Philjaw, liar and fraud:

https://soundcloud.com/investigatinghistory/xplrr-decodes-and-discusses-america-unearthed-s1-e2

The only thing Professor Williams did wrong was to once give Wolter the benefit of the doubt and try to work with him. To his detriment, of course. Look how he's been repaid. As for Wolter's other KRS points on his blog, how does he escape what has been pointed out as obvious fallacious reasoning? How does he escape his equivocations in regard to peer review having never submitted his scientific work to an academic scientific journal where his methodology could be examined and his findings replicated by others in the field? Now his KRS theory is awash in Templars, Masons and allegory only he can translate for you. What that means is that it can not be falsified. What that means is that it is fringe.

John
6/14/2016 08:42:40 pm

I believe Andy said he was starting to go through the KRS material and was aware of what was on Jason's blog, they do seem to be quite informed about each other. Why not just allow that information to be organically disseminated here instead of restarting "he said she said" arguments people have on other blogs. It's already annoying enough to read in at least 2 other places!

I'm sure Andy is aware of what happens elsewhere, he seems very well informed.

Joe Scales
6/15/2016 07:26:41 am

John,
If my points have annoyed you, please feel free to ignore them accordingly.

Arthur Faram link
6/14/2016 11:20:29 am

The universal language of mathamatics, when applied to the physical monuments and markers that existed at the time the Kensington Runestone was carved, tells the story of whether the runestone is genuine. Even if the stone had no writing on it the mathamatics prove it's authenticity.

Reply
Andy White
6/14/2016 12:09:23 pm

I have no idea what you're talking about. Care to elaborate?

Reply
John
6/14/2016 08:47:53 pm

Didn't you know? All blank stone slab tells the story of mathematics that allows you to precisely date it.

So weird.

Unrelated but I enjoyed reading about your metal work Andy. Thanks for posting that.

scott smythe-hopkins link
6/14/2016 08:23:10 pm

Follow his link to his site Andy. per the site he traced his family tree back to 45 B.C and the invasion of Britain. In the literature Ancient peoples left a secret science that he discovered and named geoghyphology that enabled him to solve the Newport Tower mystery, sorry but I stopped reading there.

Reply
Ed Tillman
8/2/2022 06:51:25 pm

I have been studying this stone and the others for over 35 yrs.I been open minded to all theories. This cause me to swing different directions and to bring in different groups of people that mostly not considered as candidate as the author of these stones. Its my belief that they are authentic pre-Columbian but not true Vikings. But was wrote by different group of people whom's country was under Vikings rule at one time.This covers all of Europe, Russia, England, Wales,Ireland,Ice Land,Greenland, Amerikas and Morocco. Because of this, they used the one type of writings that they possibly knew.
These different people had one goal to form a home where no matter your religion it can be practice without percussion the the hope to elect their leaders. The Templar was involved but while here they was disbanded as a military order. But they was united with another group that was Muslims and Islamic that was Moors (people of color). These different groups formed a different dating system that was use only for their sacred recorded history and use the Romans calendar when needed.
Their calendar had a AD start from a birth of a king whose parents left Jerusalem during its fall in 1187 AD. And that date system is incorporated into the Book of Mormons, All of the Kings births and death are recorded and those dated have a conformation event such as an eclipse that correspond to birth or date. It foreseeable that some of these dates could have been manipulated to match event such as a eclipse or comets.
Its very possibly that its their story that is being read in the Book of Mormons whose 1AD can be translated to 1192 AD on the Romeman calandar. This would place the 34 AD Storm that was refer to as "such an one never had been known in all the land." 1192 + 34= 1226 AD 3 Nephi 8:17 Mega Hurricane (SFEC,Sept. 15, 1996, p.10).
I stated that they had a different date system. Before the forming of Anno Domin or AD.They used events such as cosmic or man made event such as the building or destruction of Solomon'sTemple.
With this 17 AD 3 Nephi 3:22: "they had taken their horses and their chariots,and their cattle ...to defend themselves from their enemies."
After the fall of Solomon's Temple 587 BC-17= 570 BC this was the year that the Pharaoh Hophra was capture and killed by his own army. Then we have when Mulek was driven out of Jerusalem Helaman 8:21 Between 23 and 20 BC. Looking at this he left about 21 years before Christ. But if we look at it as 21 years before the destruction of Solomon's Temple then we have 608 BC or 607 BC when he left Jerusalem the Temple Fell. Now we have Helaman 6:10 "The lord brought Mulek into the Promise Land" 29-28 BC. How can that be that he is in the Promise land before he is born?. He didn't at the time this BC is coming from a cosmos event. 28 years Before the Comet Halley's of 542 BC making it 570 BC The year Hophra was killed he was of that blood line he had to leave.
Then we have a warning ; 3 Nephi 21:14 "that I will cut off thy horses out or the midst of thee,and I will destroy they chariots."Date 34AD 34years after they left Jerusalem. 608-34=573BC eclipse. The samples before this one all deal with ether eclipes or comets.There was no chariot battles in the Amerikas.
The second groups whose dating starts in 1192AD takes us to the Revolutionary war and first public presidential election of 1792 this gives clue on why the Book of Mormons starts out with About 600 BC- Before the Constitutional Era.
All these numbers works out. Maybe its time to relook at the Book of Mormons so we can pull out the other story.
And the rune stones mark of the geographical longitude center of the northern hemisphere at 100degrees 20 min at Pierre SD while the Kensington rune stone original placement in SD was to mark the
geographical laditude center around 45deg. To set claim to all of the northern half of the western hemisphere in the name of god.
These theories are laid out in my 513 page book called Heaven Holds the Answers.that can be order on Amizon or through me at 660-258-3951

Reply



Leave a Reply.


    All views expressed in my blog posts are my own. The views of those that comment are their own. That's how it works.

    I reserve the right to take down comments that I deem to be defamatory or harassing. 

    Andy White

    Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_A_White

    Email me: andy.white.zpm@gmail.com

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

    Sick of the woo?  Want to help keep honest and open dialogue about pseudo-archaeology on the internet? Please consider contributing to Woo War Two.
    Picture

    Follow updates on posts related to giants on the Modern Mythology of Giants page on Facebook.

    Archives

    January 2023
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    March 2021
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    3D Models
    AAA
    Adena
    Afrocentrism
    Agent Based Modeling
    Agent-based Modeling
    Aircraft
    Alabama
    Aliens
    Ancient Artifact Preservation Society
    Androgynous Fish Gods
    ANTH 227
    ANTH 291
    ANTH 322
    Anthropology History
    Anunnaki
    Appalachia
    Archaeology
    Ardipithecus
    Art
    Atlantis
    Australia
    Australopithecines
    Aviation History
    Bigfoot
    Birds
    Boas
    Book Of Mormon
    Broad River Archaeological Field School
    Bronze Age
    Caribou
    Carolina Bays
    Ceramics
    China
    Clovis
    Complexity
    Copper Culture
    Cotton Mather
    COVID-19
    Creationism
    Croatia
    Crow
    Demography
    Denisovans
    Diffusionism
    DINAA
    Dinosaurs
    Dirt Dance Floor
    Double Rows Of Teeth
    Dragonflies
    Early Archaic
    Early Woodland
    Earthworks
    Eastern Woodlands
    Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project
    Education
    Egypt
    Europe
    Evolution
    Ewhadp
    Fake Hercules Swords
    Fetal Head Molding
    Field School
    Film
    Florida
    Forbidden Archaeology
    Forbidden History
    Four Field Anthropology
    Four-field Anthropology
    France
    Genetics
    Genus Homo
    Geology
    Geometry
    Geophysics
    Georgia
    Giants
    Giants Of Olden Times
    Gigantism
    Gigantopithecus
    Graham Hancock
    Grand Valley State
    Great Lakes
    Hollow Earth
    Homo Erectus
    Hunter Gatherers
    Hunter-gatherers
    Illinois
    India
    Indiana
    Indonesia
    Iowa
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jim Vieira
    Jobs
    Kensington Rune Stone
    Kentucky
    Kirk Project
    Late Archaic
    Lemuria
    Lithic Raw Materials
    Lithics
    Lizard Man
    Lomekwi
    Lost Continents
    Mack
    Mammoths
    Mastodons
    Maya
    Megafauna
    Megaliths
    Mesolithic
    Michigan
    Middle Archaic
    Middle Pleistocene
    Middle Woodland
    Midwest
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Mississippian
    Missouri
    Modeling
    Morphometric
    Mound Builder Myth
    Mu
    Music
    Nazis
    Neandertals
    Near East
    Nephilim
    Nevada
    New Mexico
    Newspapers
    New York
    North Carolina
    Oahspe
    Oak Island
    Obstetrics
    Ohio
    Ohio Valley
    Oldowan
    Olmec
    Open Data
    Paleoindian
    Paleolithic
    Pilumgate
    Pleistocene
    Pliocene
    Pre Clovis
    Pre-Clovis
    Prehistoric Families
    Pseudo Science
    Pseudo-science
    Radiocarbon
    Reality Check
    Rome
    Russia
    SAA
    Sardinia
    SCIAA
    Science
    Scientific Racism
    Sculpture
    SEAC
    Search For The Lost Giants
    Sexual Dimorphism
    Sitchin
    Social Complexity
    Social Networks
    Solutrean Hypothesis
    South Africa
    South America
    South Carolina
    Southeast
    Stone Holes
    Subsistence
    Swordgate
    Teaching
    Technology
    Teeth
    Television
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Topper
    Travel
    Travel Diaries
    Vaccines
    Washington
    Whatzit
    White Supremacists
    Wisconsin
    Woo War Two
    World War I
    World War II
    Writing
    Younger Dryas

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly