Re: Wineland 1050 on Honen Runestone


"Lisbeth Andersson" <lisand@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns98A8C00EA7E76lisandbredbandnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"IE_Json" <inger_e.johansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:NE4lh.27643$E02.11349@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


* And if Sophus Bugge who is said to have read Wineland and 1050
on the 'memorial-stone' was correct, the time 1050 AD definitely
is interesting since it's likely around that year the Greenlandic
delegates passed Norway on their way to Hamburg Bremen.



I know I'm really nit-picking, but Bugge read the runes from a copy
of a drawing of the stone, the stone (and the origingal drawing)
had disappeared long before that.

Lisbeth you are by no means net-picking. As I wrote Bugge had an opinion
which other scholars don't agree to. I didn't go into details but what I
find interesting is that IF there would be a runestone made where
Wineland/Vinland etc was mentioned together with 1050 AD, that would be
accurate (read the Norwegian way) the time when such a stone could have been
carved. If you look at Regesta Norvegica bind 1 nr 33 you will find that the
Pope didn't mention Greenland in 1047 AD.
But as shown in Diplomatarium Norvegicum bind 17 n3 949 the Pope knew of
Greenland in 1053.
Thus he must have had information between 1047 AD and 1053 AD. We do know
that Harald Hårdråde during 1050 AD burnt Hedeby and attacked Skåne. We
don't know when he visited the Oslo area or Ringerike close by. At that time
Ringerike were larger than it is today. we also know that Oslo was founded
that year. It wouldn't be surprising if delegates from Iceland and Greenland
travelled to Hamburg-Bremen via Oslo area. They would have had an interest
participating when Oslo was founded.


Unfortunately the text is
somewhat unclear at the place where he read Vinland, and Rundata
does not agree with that reading (it's N 102 if anybody wants to
check the "official" reading, which has the same problems as Bugges
reading - they haven't seen the original). The english translation
is:

"Abroad and afar and in need of dry clothes and food, they came in
to the wilderness; up on the cold, wind-swept ice. Evil - whereby
one may die early - can take away riches."

The dating is not from any text on the stone, it's from the shape
of the runes.

A very interesting web-site about it is (including pictures)
http://www.geocities.com/netnoaide/hoenen.html

and another web-site with a somewhat different focus is
http://www.neara.org/CARLSON/atlantic.html

That's all google found on the stone.

Sue has mentioned the stone before. She and Ross have written many
interesting articles which might help to give a background from the 'other'
side of the Atlantic so to speak.

While I do agree, as I wrote, with you Lisbeth that neither Rundata or most
other scholars agree with Bugge, 1050 AD or around that year definitely is
within the years when information about Greenland and Vinland voyages, ships
wreck etc must have reached at least to Norway. Since Adam of Bremen places
delegates from Iceland and Greenland in Hamburg Bremen in period after 1047,
and the information about Greenland must have reached the Pope before end of
December 1052 we can't rule out that Sophus Bugge might have been right in
his reading and Rundata wrong. Haven't seen Bugge refering to the Adam texts
in relation to 1050 AD. Have you?


Lisbeth.

Inger E

----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.

*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com



.