Chookie
Ad Honorem
- Nov 2007
- 7,628
- Alba
I think Richard Stanberry referred to this artefact some time ago. Anyway, it interested me but at the time I was a bit busy. I've had a little more time lately, so I took another look. The basics are that in 1898, a Minnesota farmer of Swedish descent, one Olof Ohman, whilst clearing land for ploughing, took out a tree stump and found the thing.
The stone is described as weighing about 90 kilos and about 30 x 16 x 6 inches (76 x 41 x 15 cm) in size. The inscription is as follows:-
Many people claim the stone is a forgery, but they give no reasons for holding this belief, others hold that it's genuine, but they too give no reason for their belief. Most forgeries are made for a purpose (usually financial gain), but Ohman made nothing from his discovery, nor did he have the ability to carve the stone, even if he had known years before that he would have access to this piece of land at any time in the future. Nor is he known to have been fluent in 14th century Swedish.
Against that, is the fact that America, at the time was going through a phase what I'll call, for want of a better term, a “Viking Revival” this was somewhat analogous to the “Scottish Romanticism” of earlier in the century. None of which throws any light on the suggestion that this purportedly 14th century artefact displays elements of modern Swedish (which I am not competent to comment on, but we'll get back to that later).
There is a piossible historical framework which suggests that the stone could be genuine. In 1354, Paul Knutson was required by Magnus Eiriksson the current King of Sweden, to make a missionary voyage to Greenland and the “lands west”. The crew supplied for this voyage was mixed Swedes and Norwegians. They also took a priest along as the Greenlanders had reverted to paganism (so no tithes to either king or church). The survivors of this voyage returned to Sweden in 1364.
The greatest problem with the Kensington Runestone is that there are only two possibilities:-
a) Its' a forgery – if so, it has to rank with the best of the best
or
b) It's genuine – should this be the case, it would rewrite history – Columbus would have to be demoted (at the very least).
Now we'll be getting back to the bit where I have even less competence than usual (stop laughing at the back there Avon). In his “Vikings in America (Birlinn, 2009)”, Graeme Davis makes the point that had the stone been found in Sweden it would have immediately been accepted as genuine. He also says, and I quote:- “ Though I am a philologist specialising in Old English and Old Norse, I could not produce from scratch a forgery with language approaching the quality of the Runestone, and there are but a handful of people today who could attempt such work.”
So, Kensington Runestone. Genuine? Forged?
Opinions and reasons please....
The stone is described as weighing about 90 kilos and about 30 x 16 x 6 inches (76 x 41 x 15 cm) in size. The inscription is as follows:-
This is normally (and correctly) translated as
However the reference to Goths has nothing to do with the peoples of Alaric. Goths in this case means men from Gotaland which was and is part of Sweden.
Many people claim the stone is a forgery, but they give no reasons for holding this belief, others hold that it's genuine, but they too give no reason for their belief. Most forgeries are made for a purpose (usually financial gain), but Ohman made nothing from his discovery, nor did he have the ability to carve the stone, even if he had known years before that he would have access to this piece of land at any time in the future. Nor is he known to have been fluent in 14th century Swedish.
Against that, is the fact that America, at the time was going through a phase what I'll call, for want of a better term, a “Viking Revival” this was somewhat analogous to the “Scottish Romanticism” of earlier in the century. None of which throws any light on the suggestion that this purportedly 14th century artefact displays elements of modern Swedish (which I am not competent to comment on, but we'll get back to that later).
There is a piossible historical framework which suggests that the stone could be genuine. In 1354, Paul Knutson was required by Magnus Eiriksson the current King of Sweden, to make a missionary voyage to Greenland and the “lands west”. The crew supplied for this voyage was mixed Swedes and Norwegians. They also took a priest along as the Greenlanders had reverted to paganism (so no tithes to either king or church). The survivors of this voyage returned to Sweden in 1364.
The greatest problem with the Kensington Runestone is that there are only two possibilities:-
a) Its' a forgery – if so, it has to rank with the best of the best
or
b) It's genuine – should this be the case, it would rewrite history – Columbus would have to be demoted (at the very least).
Now we'll be getting back to the bit where I have even less competence than usual (stop laughing at the back there Avon). In his “Vikings in America (Birlinn, 2009)”, Graeme Davis makes the point that had the stone been found in Sweden it would have immediately been accepted as genuine. He also says, and I quote:- “ Though I am a philologist specialising in Old English and Old Norse, I could not produce from scratch a forgery with language approaching the quality of the Runestone, and there are but a handful of people today who could attempt such work.”
So, Kensington Runestone. Genuine? Forged?
Opinions and reasons please....
