Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone

Apparently on date 18 Aug 2005 23:50:30 -0700, "Franz Gnaedinger"
<frgn@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:

>
>nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>> You won't actually address the facts because they prove you to be wrong.
>
>You say that to Philip Deitiker. Philip Deitker called me a kook,
>he called you a kook, you once called me a kook, as I recall,

Indeed. Although I said it in a nice way. :)

>and now I have at least a right to ask you a question. What exactly
>did you mean when you wrote that the Norse have come as far west
>as Minnesota, for which there is ample archaeological evidence?

I'm talking about evidence that is "suggestive" of Norse penetration in the
high arctic.

The longitude of the place - as I am proposing it - is the same as in the range
covered by Minnesota.

>Which place did they reach as far west as Minnesota? Perhpas the
>mouthing of the Nelson River? And what is the archaeological evidence
>for this? Please answer these two questions precisely, just giving
>me one place as far west as Minnesota, and the evidence for just
>that place. Kooks are trying to hypnotize their readers by spreading
>a peackock fan of hundred issues. I don't ask for hundred or even
>a dozen places, just for one single place as far west as Minnesota,
>and the archaeological evidence for the pre-Columbian arrival of
>Norse there. One place, one find. Or else I have one good on you ...

This is the place I am talking about:
http://encarta.msn.com/map_701512294/Ellesmere_Island.html

You may want to click on the map to zoom in to see it in more detail. Longitude
is not hard to find out but my figures are Minnesota 89 west onwards, Ellesmere
Island extends to 91 or 92 west and you have to be at least that far west to
sail around it.

The archaeological evidence:

Up near the north-western shores of this island, an object has been found, an
unquestioned example of Norse traders' scales. This is not just a piece of
typical refuse, a trade item or normal artifact, it is a specialist piece of
kit. There are no other examples west of Iceland, so none in either eastern or
western settlements on Greenland or anywhere else on the north American
continent, this is the only one found. Although there probably were others,
they weren't even slightly commonplace.

There are several ways that this object may arrive at this location, including
it being stolen, looted, traded or given to the Inuit somewhere nearer the
colonies and carried to that place, but the more convincing reason, or at least
a definite possibility, in my way of thinking about this, is the object came to
be there because a trader came to be there and he owned it. I don't offer any
explanation as to why he did not take it away with him when he left, if he did
leave.

There are also suggestive artifacts that the ships went this far. There are
objects suggesting to some that a Norse ship was wrecked in the Kane basin
that you can see on that map. Ask yourself where that ship was heading.

It was carrying trade goods. That's unlikely to be a voyage of discovery,
although again, it could be.

There are supposedly cairns that someone has built in antiquity, on a small
island on the east coast of Ellesmere island about halfway up on that map, as I
recall. And to the south, in that channel between Ellesmere and the island
below which is Devon Island. Again, allowing that there were put there by Norse
in ships, and there are other plausible explanations like Inuit copying the
Norse, etc, but if there was a Norse ship passing through you can wonder where
they were heading at the time.

I've no issue with people rejecting my conclusions, i.e. coming to different
conclusions about how this evidence came about. I've suggested plenty of ways
the Norse can stay at home in the western settlement and all the evidence be
put there solely by the actions of Inuit, or somewhere in between, but I'm
currently of the opinion that a Viking longship is a much more efficient way to
move trade goods by sea than the kayaks used by the Inuit, and I strongly
prefer to see trade of this type as Norse, all else being equal, and
particularly when Norse trade equipment is found at a given site.

But I'm not trying to "put one" on you. I don't understand your posts, never
really have, and can't even formulate an opinion. I see few else interacting
with your posts, with the exception of Gra-pheus who is, as you know, an
unusually intense person (and is the reason I called you a crackpot, to
distance you from him, who is a very nasty crackpot with no fans or readers
rather than a harmless one who can post away for all I would stop you.)



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
    ... >>>evidence of Norse presence in the United States before Columbus. ... >> convincing archaeological evidence exists for the Norse to have gotten as far ... >> west as Minnesota, on the north american continent. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
    ... "pretty convincing archaeological evidence exists for the Norse to have gotten as far west as Minnesota." ... There is no evidence to support that claim, only evidence that the Norse could travel long distances in other directions. ... Ellesmere island is as far west as Minnesota, as per my original statement, up ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
    ... "pretty convincing archaeological evidence exists for the Norse to have gotten as far west as Minnesota." ... There is no evidence to support that claim, only evidence that the Norse could travel long distances in other directions. ... Ellesmere island is as far west as Minnesota, as per my original statement, up ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
    ... > Minnesota and you're asking me to prove that. ... >>evidence of Norse presence in the United States before Columbus. ... > convincing archaeological evidence exists for the Norse to have gotten as far ... The context is established to have been the United States. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: furthering the irrelevant
    ... >>Norse penetration of the interior of NA in the present day USA. ... > Glad you cleared that up, your "crackpots talking about norse in minnesota" ... > again, until the next time you must find a crackpot to unmask, once the need ... > your address" or more lies like that, just get it right the first time, ...
    (sci.archaeology)