Talk:Kensington Runestone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kensington Runestone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence that this is 19th century[edit]

Still not properly published though.[1] Doug Weller talk 17:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skerries or shelters[edit]

Translation of the runes is difficult and there seems to be a dispute over what this word is. Any suggestions how to deal with this? Doug Weller talk 18:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Report what the sources say, which may well be that the meaning is unclear. Jonathunder (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but I couldn't find the first source. I'll look tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is in the rune cluster in the fourth word on line four on the front of the artifact. It contains the "j" rune, the only place that rune is used on the stone. Runes are alphabets, and there is no standard one. Runic alphabets change over time and geography. When any runic inscription is translated, the runes have to be first transliterated into the sounds of the Latin alphabet. In 1906 Noreen transliterated this rune into the Scandinavian "j" which has the sound of the y in "yah" in English. Holand followed suit. This transliterated the word into "skyar" skerries. Henkrik Williams transliterated the rune as an "l" following the runic alphabets drawn in the Larsson brothers's letters, 1883 and 1885. This transliterates the word into "skelar" shelters. This may be too technical for the Wikipedia post. Edwards Geologist (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwards GeologistI think it is. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Location is southernmost point in Laurentian divide[edit]

the southernmost point in the Laurentian divide is where the KR was found

Hoax or no hoax, the location is the southernmost point in the Laurentian continental divide. Could 14th century surveyors figured that out? After the grand USGS survey results were in, that fact could have been the thing to motivate a hoaxer. The fact is, the stone was placed at the southernmost point of the Laurentian continental divide, and this fact isn't discussed much in the literature that I can tell. 172.58.142.156 (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the motivation of a modern-day hoaxer, I'd expect them to get closer to the actual southernmost point, which you could identify within a few feet. The runestone was found about fifty miles to the northeast of the Traverse Gap.
For Vikings... plotting out the height-of-land would probably have been possible, but without modern equipment, it would have been an enormous project with no real point. Even if they were exploring and map-making, there are so many better ways their time could be spent. And again, it'd be weird for them to put all that effort in, and then miss by fifty miles.
I think it's just a coincidence ApLundell (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dialect analysis[edit]

A recent analysis attempts to pin down the dialect of the carver and uses these linguistic traits to argue that the carver was Anders Andersson, a friend of Olof Öhman.[2] Haukur (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent article by a retired geologist[edit]

The Kensington Runestone: Geological Evidence of a Hoax,Harold Edwards. 2020, The Minnesota Archaeologist.[3]

Abstract: "Analyses of the geology, geological provenance, fabrication, and lack of weathering show it consistent with an 1898 date and not a 1362 date. The agstone that was used as the raw material is not native to the Kensington area. Toolimpressions and other features of its fabrication are consistent with nineteenth century practice, not four-teenth century practice. All of the letters are virtually unweathered. A calcite-rich coating covers the lowerleft corner of the front. This coating is consistent with stucco applied to the surface of the sandstone. This coating is less weathered than the calcite in 61-year old marble tombstones found in Minnesota, so it couldnot have been exposed for 536 years. It is well established from karst geology that calcite weathers at leastone and a half times faster below ground than at the surface, so if the artifact were buried for any lengthof time, its calcite-rich coating, including its inscription, would have been obliterated. This artifact wascreated near the time of its discovery, and is a late nineteenth century hoax" Loads more detail.


Doug Weller talk 14:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a pdf of my article:
https://www.academia.edu/45218145/The_Kensington_Runestone_Geological_Evidence_of_a_Hoax
My article does not name the carver of the artifact. Here is a link to a talk I gave showing that he was Olof Ohman and why Ohman did it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96009fUbMLo
Here a link to a pdf of the slides used in the talk:
https://www.academia.edu/52522029/The_Kensington_Stone_The_Anatomy_of_a_Hoax
I will leave it to you to determine how much if anything should be posted on Wikipedia.
There are two major defects of this Wikipedia entry. First, it does not convey the changing story Olof Ohman and his sons gave over the years about the month of the discovery, who was present when the artifact was dug up, how deep the artifact was buried, and the exact spot the article was found. This inconsistencies give doubt to the truthfulness of the Ohmans. Second, it does not place the works of Blegen (1960), Wahlgren (1958), Winchell (1915 reprint of 1910 paper), and Holand (1932) in the "Literature" section. These are the most important works on the artifact and Blegen's is the best of the lot. Edwards Geologist (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwards Geologist I’m having health problems and chemo but will see what I can do. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. I am sorry for your predicament. Wikipedia forbids original research. Much of my information is as yet unpublished, and I would continually blunder. Better someone else handles the matter. For my part I will try to publish a paper that captures the unpublished material. However much of it is in my Youtube lecture. Keep in mind that once the draft is finished, it takes two or more years to get a formal paper published. Edwards Geologist (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kensington_Runestone&oldid=1207950097"