After a four-year hiatus, we are back with a new season of
America Unearthed and I am thrilled! Travel Channel has "resurrected" the show and put all their efforts behind us which we greatly appreciate. We come out of the gate at full speed investigating a cache of artifacts found decades ago in the desert outside of the geological paradise known as Sedona, Arizona. Even I was skeptical at first, but when the X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) testing came back with promising elemental results, and then ultimately they turned out to be authentic artifacts dating from the Roman era (3rd-4th Centuries) to the Viking era (10th to 11th Centuries), things got very interesting quickly. The big question was no longer about legitimacy of the artifacts, it was how did they get to the desert southwest, reportedly inside an old and rotting leather bag? There were really only two plausible possibilities; the collection of artifacts were left in the desert by someone, most likely a Scandinavian immigrant, in the late 19th, 20th, or early 21st Century, or somehow, a group of determined Viking era explorers made their way to what is now known as Arizona sometime in the 10th or 11th Centuries. When do you think the artifacts made it to Arizona?
The beautiful canyon at Slide Rock State Park which isn't too far from where the Viking artifacts were reportedly discovered near Sedona, Arizona.
Harry Atkins Jr. and Bonnie Engels take a selfie with me at Slide Rock State Park just after we tested the brass artifacts with the X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) gun.
Geologist/Geophysicist, Patrick Lehrmann, holds the steel bar he found with a metal detector we hoped was metal from a stranded Viking era ship that may have sailed here when the water of the Salton Sea covered this area roughly 1000 years ago.
Although we didn't find the legendary Viking ship, we did find the telltale evidence of a long lost Viking...
Author and historian, David Kier and I, pose for a selfie overlooking a gorgeous bay on the Pacific side of Baja, Mexico.
The Committee Films crew relax during a long day of filming in Baja, Mexico. L to R, Andy, Zak, Brandon, Jim, and Miranda.
This beautiful ship petroglyph, thought by archaeologists to be a one-thousand year-old in central Baja, Mexico, could be evidence of a Viking era ship seen by Native Americans a millennia ago.
I did my best to mimic a large saguaro cactus at the ship petroglyph site in Baja, Mexico.
Scott and team,
ReplyDeleteI love your show and enjoy your work. I am a high school history teacher and attempt to do my best to show that history is, unfortunately, a political tool that is used by the powerful and elite. Most of what we have been told is a lie. Keep up the good work.
Hunter Rivett
Hunter,
DeleteGlad to hear you're teaching the kids to think critically. The real world is coming for them soon enough and the more prepared they are the better. Thanks for taking time to send a comment.
Mr. Rivett,
DeleteWhat do you mean by most of what we have been told is a lie? History has gotten things wrong, but tends to get things right unless you disagree with the historians who say things like there were Crusades and the Christians lost, the Normans conquered England, the North won the Civil War, the Allies won World Wars One and Two, there was a Depression in the 1930s, etc., etc., etc. There is a big difference between lying to people and simply making incorrect assertions based on the materials that one has to work with as well.
This episode investigated a strange tale of a Viking ship stranded in a southwestern desert and didn't come up with much of anything. How does it reveal that we are being lied to by people who say there is no real evidence of people from Scandanavia or Greenland or Iceland reaching the Southwest?
I could produce a leather pouch full of 1000 year old Anasazi pottery and say that I found it in Uncle Bob's sweet corn patch in upstate New York. Unless something beyond that is produced what do you really have? Does that mean that we are being lied to by people who don't believe that the Anasazi were in contact with upstate New York or that there was long distance trade between the areas?
Delbert,
DeleteI think Hunter was making a general statement about other historical subject matter than the Viking artifacts we investigated in last night's episode. For example, the Columbus myth to begin with that set the table for more lies that followed. Further, numerous artifacts and sites such as the Kensington, Spirit Pond and Narragansett Rune Stones, the Newport Tower, the Tucson Lead Artifacts, the Bat Creek Stone that continue to be dismissed as "frauds" and "hoaxes" when science have proven them to be genuine. Yet still academia, the Smithsonian Institution, the Roman Catholic Church and certain government entities continue to attack the evidence, and try to undermine the credibility of the scientists who investigate them. I continue to experience this daily.
I understand your point about out of context artifacts being difficult to explain. However, the fact is the lies do continue regardless of these Viking era (and older) artifacts. They are two different subjects and need to be treated separately.
Hope that helps.
Mr. Wolter,
DeleteThanks for your response, however, I was hoping to hear from Mr. Rivett since he is a teacher and I am interested in hearing about exactly what information that he may be conveying to students about "lies.
As for the topics that you mentioned I don't think that any of them have been proven to be genuine. You may feel otherwise, but just because there is debate over the authenticity is that really proof that someone is lying?
That is quite different from new information emerging which demonstrates to the satisfaction of everyone involved that a particular historian actually lied about something. Under the circumstances couldn't some make the claim that you are lying and that you work to undermine the credibility of people who are trying to expose you? I'm not making that accusation, just pointing out how this can work both ways.
Perhaps Mr. Rivett could help us out here. Are schools actually still teaching that Columbus was the first European to reach the western hemisphere? I don't recall hearing anything about Columbus being first since my lower elementary school grades in the late 1960s when we were taught the whole "in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue..." spiel.
I don't agree with treating subjects differently. You investigated a phenomenon and found no substantial support for it. Unless the circumstances change it supports the notion that historians are not lying about this aspect of Vikings in north america. Don't enough examples like this involve the danger that it will eventually lead to a "death by a thousand cuts" of the notion that Mr. Rivette articulated that most of what we have been told are lies? Unless, of course, you try to discount these examples by claiming that they should be treated as different subjects.
Delbert,
DeleteMr. Rivett will respond if he is so inclined. I’m not sure what your end game here is as I thought I made it clear that not every academic or institution in this country is lying. However, some of them most certainly are. The Smithsonian Institution being one of them. Do they lie about everything? Of course not, but they have and continue to lie about most everything to do with the controversial artifacts I mentioned. Which begs another questions; who decides what’s authentic and what is a hoax. Academia, the government, you, me, who?
Fact, there is voluminous factual evidence in multiple disciplines consistent with the Kensington Rune Stone being a medieval artifact. Most notably, the HARD (pun intended) science of geology. Fact, there is zero evidence that is consistent with the artifact being a hoax. Is that enough for you? It is for me, and it should be for the world. Those that argue against this evidence are, in essence, lying in my book.
Perhaps we could couch it differently, but in many cases the word “lie” is appropriate. You don’t have to agree with that, but it works for me.
Mr. Wolter,
DeleteUnfortunately I am on a shared internet plan at my facility and am very limited in when I can get online and how long I can use the computer at this time of the month. I have to keep my comments brief. I don't know what you mean by "end game?" I am just seeking some clarification from Mr. Rivett about his comments. I guess clarity is my end game.
I do not claim to be an expert on the Kensington Stone or other sites or artifacts. I just know that every example that you cite as being authentic is contested by many experts in the relevant fields. I'm simply pointing out that since I do not know you and do not know other people researching these things I am hesitant to take the word of someone on the internet who is claiming that people are lying or are trying to hide something because they are in disagreement with someone else.
Using the world lie may work for you but it also appears to work quite well for others in describing you. Again, not an accusation by me, just pointing out yet again that this works both ways.
I would still like to hear from Mr. Rivett about what criteria he uses to determine when to tell a group of students that something in particular is a lie.
It may be several days before I can spend any time online but I look forward to seeing some clarification.
Thank you
Delbert,
DeleteAs far as the Kensington Rune Stone goes, put simply, I am a licensed professional geologist and I do not lie, period. I have published three professional peer reviewed scientific laboratory reports and four books about the Kensington Rune Stone. No has found anything to refute any of my findings despite whatever claims you read on the internet. If they did, I would immediately fix whatever errors or mistakes I made.
All runological, linguistic, grammar and dialect questions raised by scholars have been resolved and there are no longer legitimate arguments to be made against the artifact at this time. It is a resolved matter.
I think the issue of "lying" has been addressed and is in its proper context for this discussion. At any rate, if Mr. Rivett wants to respond, he will.
Mr. Wolter
DeleteThankfully our minutes have been renewed for the first of the month and I can post although I will have to keep my comments brief to last the month.
No doubt that you are proud of your credentials. However, I daresay that there are many who are in disagreement with you, especially those in fields such as archaeology, linguistics, and history whose own credentials equal or surpass your own. I can only go with the information that can be gleaned by reviewing the mountain of information that can be accessed on the internet. It provides evidence that the matter is far from resolved. You disagree so we will have to disagree on the issue of lies versus disagreements over evidence or lack thereof. I need my computer minutes to delve further into these issues. It is really a moot point since my main interest was getting the perspective of someone who is directly engaged in the educational system on this matter. Unless Mr. Rivett decides to respond, I think we can consider the matter closed. But thank you for your opinion on things.
Delbert
Really loved your show whenit was on before and now I'm going to miss it as I don't have that channel in my package. Such a bummer that I missed this first show since I live in the Sedona area! Hopefully, I can find it on Netflix somewhere down the road. Keep up the great work!
ReplyDeleteDeborah,
DeleteSorry you missed it; have you tried the Travel Channel app?
Scott, glad to see you back on Travel Channel with America Unearthed and it is just as I remembered! Keep finding the true history of America!
ReplyDeleteNick,
DeleteWill do, and thanks for taking the time to send me a note.
I'm so happy that you your TV show is back on aire. I was wondering if maybe we could get crossover with America Unearthed and Expedition Unknown. I can't imagine how amazing having my two favorite host meeting up and taking a crack an American mystery.
ReplyDeleteUnknown,
DeleteJosh seems like a really nice and intelligent guy. However, I was very disappointed when he said the Newport Tower was a windmill. It said to me he has not done his homework and resorted to the standard accepted (in his field of archaeology) narrative. I know he can do better and I'm happy to help him better understand the numerous facts about this amazing structure that support a much different conclusion.
In any case, if he's game, then I am too.
So at this point, he's lying?
DeleteVal,
DeleteNo. In this case, he simply didn't do his homework and went with the standard academic archaeological narrative. Because I know how much time goes into making television as the host, I understand there simply isn't enough time to delve into the research of each episode to draw an informed opinion. However, he should have taken a more neutral position or said he needed time to look into it IMO.
Gates has shown to be open to woo. For a nice mutual bump in ratings I bet he would be willing to go on camera and let you persuade him that all those professionals might be wrong and you are right. But then again he is actually educated in archaeology and if he decided to turn it into a debate, it might take same heavy editing to sell people in the idea that he was persuaded. Good ratings and publicity for both if you either way. I say go for it.
DeleteHarold,
DeleteI'm sure if it ever happened we'd get along just fine and have fun. As far as what'd investigate I have a few ideas. Let see what, if anything happens.
Hi Scott,
ReplyDeleteFirst, please let me say I am a HUGE fan of the show and have watched all episodes. Please keep them coming!
Most recently, my husband and I watched your episode, Vikings in the Desert, and couldn't help but notice when you mentioned the Swedes, Norwegians, etc. coming to America beginning in the 1830's, you forgot to mention the first Swedish colony in Delaware in the 1600's. My ancestors were part of this Swedish colony, arriving in the Kalmar Nyckel. There is a possibility that some journeyed on to the west and took their artifacts with them. Just something to consider and factor in when discussing the Vikings. Thanks again for a great show!
Haymarketgal,
DeleteYou are quite correct that a 17th Century Swedish immigrant could have brought a collection of artifacts that ended up in the desert outside of Sedona. We simply don't know, but it was a lot of fun looking into the "Vikings" possibility.
Thanks for taking time to send a comment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNerd11135,
DeleteSince you seem to be “research nerd,” and I mean as a compliment, and obviously have a grasp of the facts in James and Thorpe’s book, please enlighten us with the “facts” that support the Kensington Stone is a hoax. That is what you are implying or am I wrong?
Keep in mind, there was an explosion in the amount of new research and factual information that came forward beginning in 2000. Sounds like James and Thorpe missed it by “That much…”
Just my nickle, but I noticed that it was "another farmer" who found this. How odd.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, as the history teacher (Hunter) above pointed out, he was giving his students a chance to do their own research. Scott even has a tape of an eye witness and the second teacher (Delbert) said that wasn't even good enough. And then demanded to hear, personally, from Hunter. Why. This is why we have discussions. No one has said Delbert can't supply a rebuttal to your show. This is what this thread is about. Bravo to Hunter.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteSaying someone is lying because they disagree is not a good look on you. Now to nitpick a bit no articles are "out of context" when they're found; they necessarily have a context: where they're found. The phrase you want is "out of place" as in OOPA.
Val
Val,
DeleteIt’s an even worse look on you to try and put words in a persons mouth they did not say. I wasn’t talking about uninformed, flippant opinions offered by those who know not what they are talking about. But then, you knew that. I’m talking about scholars and institutions that know better. What do you call someone who says something they know isn’t true?
I think you meant ‘artifacts’ (spellcheck sucks sometimes), but “out of context” artifacts is perfectly appropriate as is OOPA.
As a second comment, let's talk about the petroglyph (the ship with a single mast sail). Off hand, this one carving is gonna hurt. It can't just be written off. This is proof the natives saw and witnessed this. Any other story, will have to provide proof of who other could have carved it. Mind you, historians and archaeologists aren't trained as geologists.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
DeleteYou make an excellent point. Granted, the petroglyph isn't proof of a connection to the Viking and older collection of artifacts found in Sedona. However, archaeologists placed the age of the petroglyph to the same time period as the Viking era.
Just saying...
David;
DeleteThe pictograph intriguing But before accepting it as evidence a lot of things have to be considered:
1.Can it actually be dated to a specific period using the most up to date technology and techniques? Given the way that it is scratched into the rock can it even be determined if it dates to 1250 or 1950? Are there older photographs showing the image as being there a long time or is it someone's idea of a prank? It is one thing to look at it and estimate that it is ancient. Verifying that claim is another.
2.It kind of looks like a Viking ship because we are thinking about Viking ships. How closely does it resemble pictographs in Scandanavia that are authentic depictions of longboats? Someone who just saw this image at random might think it looks more like a Chinese Junk or a colonial era Spanish schooner.
3.Is it even a ship or is it an image that looks like a ship. Someone once saw an image in a Mayan tomb that looked a lot like someone piloting a space craft into outer space. Turned out that it was a depiction of a dead person entering the afterworld. What looks like a big lightbulb depicted in Egyptian art turns out to be a flower(if I recall correctly). A clay object from South America that looks like an elephant turns out to be an image of a tapir.
A lot of investigation is needed here.
Do you have a family background in central Illinois?
T. Ulrich,
DeleteIf I may jump in for a second. In at least two of your three comments it appears you may not have watched the episode as the points you made were addressed.
1. Archaeologists are the ones who date the petroglyph at between 1000-1500 years old. To me, the weathering looked like it could be consistent with that age.
2. We showed pictures of Viking Knorr’s comparing their features and they were strikingly similar.
3. Could it be a depiction of something other than a ship? I suppose, but there is strong consensus it looks like a ship.
I agree that more research needs to be done.
David,
DeleteFor me, it was the animal/dragon head with water or whatever coming out of it's mouth on the bow. Seemed most reminiscent of a Viking ship. Doesn't prove it, but worked for me.
Scott
DeleteYou got me there. To be honest I was not able to give the episode my full attention. Perhaps you or other fans here can fill in some blanks.
I do remember it being said that someone had dated the petroglyph, however, I may have missed the part where further information was given on who the people doing the dating are, their credentials, and what specific methods they used to arrive at that date range?
Regarding Viking Knorrs I do remember seeing pictures of them in the episode. I also googled a number of images of these ships and the earlier models they are based upon. I am struck by their graceful design even in crudely rendered pictographs from Europe of these types of ships. Slender, close to the water, and rising gradually and gracefully up to a well carved and proportionate dragon head on one end and tail on the other. The petroglyph in your episode on the other hand looks to be of a more "blocky" design; rising abruptly up to a disproportionately large and square shaped prow that could be said to resemble a dragon head. When viewing the pictograph from a wide angle, it appeared to me that the opposite end is identical in shape and size. I have no clue if Vikings were ever in the habit of building knars with an enormous dragon head on each end? But maybe something I missed while checking on the pre-teen birthday party in my basement?
There are some generic similarities to the blocky design of certain Spanish galleons or schooners of the 17th century. A Spanish ship that had survived a storm with only its central mainsail intact shouldn't be off the table here. Especially since some versions of the folktale about the stranded ship mentions a Spanish ship.
Some images of 17th century or earlier Chinese junks are interesting as well. Didn't you do an episode on early Chinese contact with the West Coast?
I think we both heartily agree on the need for much more research.
Of course, the real question would be "who else built ships that looked like this". I would think the list is going to be very very short.
ReplyDeleteScott, I'm so glad to see your series back on TV. I'm a big fan, and I love learning new stuff. I don't understand how with all the legends I've read about that I missed this story about the Viking ship. I'm a bit curious. Did you try tracking down relatives of the farmer who owned the property? Other previous owners? Maybe some had memories of the remnants being carted off or (god forbid) destroyed? I'm also curious why you think the Vikings could have endured the Northwest Passage? If the Octavius couldn't do it, how could the Vikings pull it off?
ReplyDeleteThor2000,
DeleteThe family who allowed us to dig has owned the property since the 1960s. The Northwest Passage seemed to be the most plausible route for a Vikings ship(s) to make such a trip to that area if it happened at all.
I understand that a civil war era cargo boat was being carried over land to the Colorado River to ferry mining equipment but was abandoned in that part of California when it proved impractical to go further. Isn't that a more likely source of the lumber reported in the tape?
ReplyDeleteCorey1971,
DeleteI suppose it's possible, but there's no evidence that puts it in the Salton Sea area that I'm aware of.
I'm not an expert on wood decay, but isn't it unlikely that almost thousand year old wood would be too decayed to be used as a fence. I'm not accusing anything, I honestly don't know. Do you think that it would have lasted that long?
DeleteCorey1971,
DeleteThat was one of my initial thoughts. However, if the boat went to the bottom of the lake back then it would have been covered with silt/clay that would help preserve the wood. This is reasonable speculation and the legend that severe wind storms uncovered the wood/metal is plausible.
Who knows until it is ever found, but it is plausible the wood could have survived IMO.
Thank you so much for answering my questions.
DeleteT. Ulrich. In answer to your question regarding central Illinios ----- yes. Big time.
ReplyDeleteDavid:
DeleteI don't suppose that you were related to a rather large gentleman who was a school principal in the 1960s and wielded a fearsome paddle?
Also, could you provide any information on how the petroglyph was dated and who did it and how? I didn't tape the show and missed portions of it.
T. Ulrich,
DeleteOur guest who led us to the petroglyph in Baja, David Kier, relayed the information to me about archaeologists 1000-1500 years old estimate. David is easy to find if you'd like more information.
Scott glad your show is back I love it! I believe the Travel Channel is a great place for it and will treat you well!
ReplyDeleteI work with trimble in construction and noticed Trimble machines in the back of the truck when you searched for the Viking Ship. How did you use Trimble in your excavation if at all?
Hi Zack,
DeleteForgive my ignorance, but what is a Trimble machine and what does it do? I remember everything we did, but don't remember hearing about a Trimble machine...
He probably had it in his truck for another job. It lays out selected points on a gridded area of interest. He would have put up control markers around the field, set up a computerized grid of the area, all the potential “hot areas” found from the rebar or other disturbed locations would have been mapped out. So you could come back the next week or another potential return , set the machine up via the control points, and you would be able to locate any and all points of potential interest. Im guessing he does use it this way for some digs.
DeleteJust curious as I’ve gotten some on my Trimble crew to watch this show now that it’s back I’m sure they noticed it to.
Zack,
DeleteThat does sound like the equipment he used. Patrick has surveyed the field the day before we dug and had flags laid out marking his grid system and anomalies found. Slick job he did.
The one thing thing that has me in doubt about the Vikings being in So.Cal/Arizona is the ship route. Crossing completely over the US, around Alaska, down the coast then deciding to settle into that region seems arduous and unlikely. They would have passed many regions similar to their native land that would have been preferable, and the South West would seem the antithesis of where they would want to be.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the goal of exploration and traveling completely around a continental landmass would be the explanation rather than establishing settlements? Either way I highly doubt that this area is Vinland.
You did a great job in the episode of how they could have been there, but you never went into why. Can you elaborate on why they would have made this trek? Been wrapping my head around it, and would love to hear your thoughts.
Zack,
DeleteI don't believe that IF the Vikings made it to the southwest region of the continent that it was for settlement. I suspect they either got to a point of no return (ice, realizing they had gone too far and didn't want to go back the same dangerous route), or they were exploring looking for resources. My gut tells me if the Vikings actually did make to the Salton Sea area 1,000 years ago, they may have lost the ship, then tried venturing to the eastern coast (lost the artifacts near what is now Sedona, AZ, along the way), build a ship to sail home.
That seems the mostly likely 11th Century scenario, but I doubt we'll ever know for sure with the scant evidence we have now. Finding that ship would go a long way to a better understanding, IF it really is a Viking era ship.
That scenario does seem plausible. Thanks for the reply! This blog is a great place to find answers on your thoughts for questions that can’t all be fully relayed on a 43 minutes program you investigated weeks/months on.
DeleteZack,
DeleteI'm happy to answer sincere questions which yours are. I get a lot of trolls on here and I give them a shorter leash than ever now. Life is too short for that; thanks for taking time to comment.
I'm glad the show is back. Just saw episode 1 last night, it's too bad you couldn't locate the ship remains and slam dunk this thing. People need to understand it would take a substantial amount of money, time, and some luck to locate such a thing after so much time has passed. I applaud whoever was prescient enough to record that man's description of what he saw.
ReplyDeleteTroutman,
DeleteIt was really cool to hear that tape recording from over 50 years ago. If that ship is really out there, I'm sure some day it'll be found.
Stay tuned for a lot more fun and interesting episodes. Next week's "Alien Artifacts" episode is one of my favorites!
Scott,
ReplyDeleteI am thrilled to see you back. My relatives are all from MN and we live in Tucson, AZ now. I think the Vikings made it to the southwest. I don't know that the artifacts made it with the Vikings or not, but it's a fantastic story regardless.
Sincerely,
Anthony Scheffman
Anthony,
DeleteGlad you enjoyed the show; it was fun to put together. I was getting my hopes up we just might find that ship. Next time.
Delbert,
ReplyDeleteThe authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone is not a matter of who has better or worse credentials; it’s a matter of factual evidence, and the evidence has spoken. I will say again, there is ZERO factual evidence to support a hoax theory. All have been debunked and the factual evidence in runology, language, grammar, dialect, and history are consistent with authenticity. All arguments against the stone have been resolved. It’s done.
Incidentally, there is no archaeological aspect of the KRS to discuss. The facts around the discovery are well documented and until something is pulled from the ground at the discovery site, which has yet to happen, archaeologist have nothing to contribute except their “beliefs.” Not trying to be negative, these are simply the facts.
In the end, you must do your own research to arrive at a conclusion. I suggest you read mine and Richard Nielsen’s book, “The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence.” All the facts in the various disciplines are there along with a historical summary of the investigations and info all the people involved in the story over the past century. Arm yourself with the facts and decide for yourself.
Mr. Wolter
DeleteI should have been more specific. Not only do the credentials of your critics equal or surpass your own in the requisite fields but it would appear that the same is true in terms of evidence marshalled against your claims in the form of writings. You recommend sources, generally your own work, in support of the authenticity but there are many other sources that offer alternative perspectives with their own bodyies of evidence. No doubt your disagree i just wanted to make sure that I had stated things correctly.
My understanding of archaeology is limited, but what little I do know does not really mesh with your assertion that there is not an archaeological aspect to the Kensington stone. If you aren't educated in archaeology then how can you make such an authoritive statement? Woouldnt archaeologists who have worked on viking sites and with viking artifacts and inscriptions be in a position to offer valid perspctives? Isn;t it just stating your own "belief" to argue otherwise. Wouldn't your critics be able to seize upon this as a lie?
Sorry to ramble on and I am already getting in trouble with my computer minutes. I don't think that Mr. Rivett is going to return and I am hoping to devote my minutes to reviewiing the writing you suggested but also a lot of other things that present differing perspectives.
Again, thank you for your opinions.
Delbert,
DeleteYou’re beginning to sound like a broken record repeating yourself hoping for a different outcome. In 2005, Professor Emeritus of Archaeology at the University of Wisconsin, Alice Beck Kehoe, published a book titled, “The Kensington Rune Stone: Approaching a Research Question Holistically”. She concluded Richard Nielsen and I had scientifically proven the Kensington Rune Stone was a medieval artifact. Are her credentials satisfactory? In any case, as I have said repeatedly now, the person with the most credentials doesn’t win or is "right", it’s the person with the most facts.
Since your understanding of archaeology is limited, please state what specific archaeological aspects there are connected to the KRS investigation? The fundamental problem with your claim is somehow the “Vikings” had anything to do with the Kensington Rune Stone. The date clearly states 1362 which is 300 years AFTER Christianity went through Scandinavia; the “Viking” era was long over.
Before you even bring up the word “lying”, please get the facts straight.
Mr. Wolter,
DeleteWith all due respect I was not the one who initially brought up the idea of lying or lies. If I am sounding like a broken record it is because I am simply confused by the answers I am getting and an apparent sea of dueling facts. For example, you are dismissive of archaeologists and ask me to identify specific archaeological aspects there are connected to the Kensington Stone claim. But now you identify an archaeologist who is supportive of the claim. Aren't you helping to answer your own question about the relevance of archaeology in this regard?
Thank you for the reference to Dr. Kehoe and your own work. I am always happy to educate myself and will get back to you when I have had ample opportunity to look into these materials.
Thank you,
Delbert
Delbert,
DeleteI am also not the one who brought up the subject of lying. Further, if you don’t want to accept the information and personal experience I’m sharing in regard to the Kensington Rune Stone that is your choice. Instead of trying to address broad generalities arguments, I prefer to address specific points to get to the truth behind these arguments. At this point in time, the artifact sits in isolation of any archaeological context so there is nothing for archaeologists to discuss. Further, archaeologists and other scholars dismiss the artifact because it doesn’t fit the context of the Viking era Scandinavian rune stone tradition. For Pete’s sake, it’s a medieval artifact based on the 1362 date, not a “Viking” era inscription. Further, why are scholars insisting it must follow typical Scandinavian runic tradition which it clearly doesn’t?
This totally unscientific approach is embarrassing and largely why we are still at this point. A truly scientific investigative approach is to not make ANY assumptions at the start. These arrogant scholars have been trying to tell the Kensington Rune Stone what it is supposed to be, instead of letting the artifact tell them what it is. Does this make sense?
Alice is a good person, and even though she does not agree it was created by the Templars (academic suicide in archaeology), she agrees it’s 100% a medieval document. I’m proud of Alice and respect her for putting her “pen”, where her mouth is.
If I offended you I apologize; that was not my intent.
Apologies for the delay – I had to get the book from out of the library.
ReplyDeleteThe writeup on the Kensington Rune Stone occurs on pages 391-397. The gist of the argument is that the language and grammar are not correct for the time period claimed for the stone, there are no records of the expedition claimed (ok technically it'd be no records of related expeditions that sometimes are cited to support the stone's authenticity), there is no supporting archaeology (meaning no detritus of everyday life found with the stone – the bread and butter of Archaeology, showing the people who made a given artifact rather than the artifact itself), and there is a controversy about the date of a tree found in the area (the dating of which would help to show when the stone was buried).
They also cite a number of reasons to specifically think that the stone was a fake (circumstances, history, timing, and a curious second-hand confession). Would this be enough to prove the stone a fake if someone were making an affirmative claim for it to be so? I have no idea, because my main concern is to show that it is not what was claimed. A circumstantial, affirmative case for a hoax is but part of the evidence.
I note that the Canadian Viking site is also discussed in the book, pages 397-399, and the contrast between what we do have for that site and what we do not have for the the stone is quite stark.
You of course will not accept this – not only does it involve fields other than Geology but it was published before 2000, which is the date you claim the best proof was released.
Regarding the first (fields other than Geology), as I noted above, a rock with stuff carved into it by people is not just a rock anymore. It is a physical record of a people group (hence Archaeology), it is a document (hence History), and it (obviously) written in a language (hence Linguistics). Depending on what's inscribed on the rock and what effect it has, it might also involve still other fields. (Political Scientists, Literary scholars, Sociologists, Historians of the modern-day, and other fields' scholars might have interesting things to say about the rock and its uses.) Either way, in making and perpetuating these claims, one subjects one's self to the methods used by those other fields, because they are the most-appropriate fields for studying the topic.
Regarding the second (the fact that the book was published before 2000), as it turns out other writers have covered the same territory since that date and, importantly, have cited sources that also were after that date.
Here's the “Bad Archaeology” site.
http://www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-place-artefacts/petroglyphs-inscriptions-and-reliefs/the-kensington-runestone/
And here's ArchyFantasies.
https://archyfantasies.com/where-the-vikings-werent-viking-runestones-in-america-the-kensington-runestone/
The way you phrased your claim was:
[[All runological, linguistic, grammar and dialect questions raised by scholars have been resolved and there are no longer legitimate arguments to be made against the artifact at this time. It is a resolved matter.]]
Also:
[[Keep in mind, there was an explosion in the amount of new research and factual information that came forward beginning in 2000. Sounds like James and Thorpe missed it by “That much…” ]]
Not true based on what I have found.
As you have phrased your claims they at minimum are exaggerated.
-An Anonymous Nerd
Nerd11135,
DeleteThe language and grammar questions have all been resolved: fact. Please refer to "The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence" by Wolter/Nielsen, 2006, pages 49-92. The collective estimate of twelve eyewitnesses was the tree was 25-30 years old. This is consistent with the discovery stories documented in affidavits at the Minnesota Historical Society, and that age is how old the Aspen tree would have to have been for its roots to pull the 202-pound stone from the ground. Simple physics.
The hoax ‘reasons’ are all speculation with no factual basis; sorry Nerd, this is all sheer fiction. Read our book for a complete analysis of the facts to these claims.
L’Ance aux Meadows is only related to the KRS in that it proves Norse exploration to North America did happen 350 years prior to the KRS party. If they could do it then, they could do it 1362.
I claimed the new evidence that proves the KRS to be authentic came AFTER 2000 and it's still coming. It is you my friend, who refuses to accept the conclusive evidence the KRS is medieval. But that is your choice. As I said, all the “problems” with the inscription have been resolved by scholars. It is the political and ethical entanglements that keep scholars like Professor Henrik Williams from saying what he knows to be true. Eventually the truth will prevail, it always does.
Sorry, but you have found nothing to refute my claims, you simply don’t want to accept them. That is your choice.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteWhy did the twelve eyewitnesses have to estimate the age of the tree? Wouldn't counting the rings have been simpler and more accurate?
I don't understand what you said about "simple physics". Was the stone buried or did the roots pull it out of the ground?
Val Miller
Val,
DeleteCounting the rings would have been a good idea, but to our knowledge was never done. Twelve eyewitnesses gave statements and they range from 25-40 years, after throwing out the high of 75 years, and the low 12 years estimates. (See page 3 and 4 of Compelling New Evidence for more details).
My "simple physics" comment was related to the fact the tree had to be of a certain size/age to be able to lift the 202-pound out of the ground when it fell. Ohman said he took a "grub ax" and cut the roots off around the base of the tree. The stone was shallowly buried just below the surface directly under the tree whose roots (estimated to be 3-1/2" wide and flattened from prolonged contact) had wrapped around the back of the stone tightly enough to still pull it out of the ground.
I think the posters here are missing a very important point. Out west, where I live, we have a saying --- first out of the chute.... The first point not mentioned which negates this whole discussion is that the carvings on the rock, no matter what they are, were dated approx. That approx date was ''more then 200 years PRIOR to the finding'' Our best friend, the farmer and all the witnesses WERE NOT EVEN BORN YET. In order to even get to the second point of this discussion, the above posters need to PROVE an alternate date.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
DeleteThat's a great point and makes any discussion of a hoax impossible. Dare I say, game, set, match, let's have a party?
Scott,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed episode 2. That's unreal! I had an idea for you. Do you know anything about the Piri Reis map of 1513 that shows an ice free Antarctic coast? Interesting stuff!
Sincerely,
Anthony Scheffman
Anthony,
DeleteThat's a really good idea and you might just see that very map in a later episode this season. ;-)
In my mind, the existence of that map is absolute proof that mankind went through a period of much higher civilization in the distant past than mainstream history teaches us. How can there be any other conclusion?
DeleteTroutman,
DeleteI am inclined to agree with you.
Hey Scott:
ReplyDeleteAny chance the lost Viking ship in the desert could be related any way to the Mustang Mountains runestone you took a look at in an earlier season? The two don't seem too far apart on the map.
Thanks,
Twilly
Twilly,
DeleteThat's an interesting question and one I never considered. At first glance I'd say not likely because the artifacts and legendary Viking ship are Viking era and older (approx. 4th -11th Centuries) and the runic inscription is 13th-14th Century. However, even if the two aren't directly related, maybe they are telling us there was more preColumbian activity by Europeans (and other cultures) coming to North America than we fully understand yet.
Bravo to you for thinking outside the box!
David and Scott:
ReplyDeleteI was able to find the episode online. I did not miss as much as I thought. In the scene with Kier he stated that it had been dated to 1000 to 1500 years ago. There was only vague reference to "scholars and academics" doing this by Scott. As Scott suggested, I looked a little into Kier. I found discussion of an article written by him in 2015 called Rock Art Site of Baja California. Kier only said that the site is "believed to date back up to 1000 years." I didn't see any information on if there had been a scientific process to arrive at this estimate. Interestingly enough, Kier also described the ship as "Spanish Galleon shape" in the article. The site is supposed to be in close proximity to an old Spanish mission. Since dating rock art is not an exact science it is unclear if the specific drawing is prehistoric or was added later to other earlier drawings there based on activities associated with the Spanish.
This takes a lot of the wind out of the sails (pardon the pun) of the notion that we are seeing solid evidence of a Viking ship. But it also leaves the door wide open for further specific discussion of the dating process, or perhaps an actual scientific effort at a dating process, and perfectly plausible Native American/Spanish contact at an early date. I would be delighted to see a future episode devoted to this topic. If it turns out that the Spanish can be ruled out as the source of inspiration for the drawing then the door would swing back open for further discussion of a Viking connection. Either way a great topic for additional investigation and discussion.
T. Ulrich,
ReplyDeleteActually the fellow said 1000 to 1500 A.D. which is 500 to 1000 years old.
I have also read they dated from 1000 yrs. to the Missionary years.
Given the "ship" seems by far, the freshest or newest of the petroglyphs I am inclined to peg them at the Mission age.
Also, are they really a ship? They are carved in the cliff right above a aqueduct and had series of trenches they built for irrigation. They also built a large square and deep reservoir to hold water.
If you look at the square "sail" it has a wavy line which may depict water. So possibly a rough schematic drawing of a irrigation system?
If you look closely at the left side of the "ship" it looks like water flowing out.
One other thing of note is that they quarried rock from that cliff face.
Scott,
DeleteI'm not buying it's depicting the irrigation system we could see remnants of during our visit. The left side, or bow of the ship does have a wavy line that does appear to be water, but it looked to me like it was coming out of the mouth of a dragon or serpent.
Water coming out of a dragon's mouth? Sounds like you are trying to make it fit your preconceived notion.
ReplyDeleteIt seems way to boxy to for a Viking ship. They were not square, not square at all. I have to try really hard to see a Spanish caravel or a Galleon, but at least they sometimes had somewhat of a raised squareness to the fore and aft.
It's like looking at clouds.
Here is a photo showing it with a lot of the other ones, it is by far the newest looking one, almost certainly not Viking era.
https://photobucket.com/gallery/user/DavidKier/media/cGF0aDoyMDE3LTYgQ2VudHJhbCBCYWphL0lNR181OTc3LmpwZw==/?ref=
Add that on top of the extreme implausibility of an un-motorized open ship somehow managing the Northwest passage,,,has that EVER even happened without a combustion or steam engine?
I am afraid without some real evidence this is just a pipe dream.
Sam,
DeleteMaybe it's fire, or water, I don't think we have nay idea what the person who carved it intended. In any case, it looks like a ship to me but what type of ship isn't clear. I agree it looks more recent than the other carvings around it, but we simply don't know when any of them were carved.
There is no documented Viking era voyages thru the Northwest Passage that I am aware of. Would it be extremely difficult? Yes. Impossible? I learned a long time ago never to underestimate the ability of people to do the impossible. At this point, we simply don't know.
Sam;
DeleteThanks for the correction on the estimated date range. Chalk the mistake up to a blonde moment on my part. Pushing the later end of the date range into circa-1500 or the mission era certainly plays into the Spanish-influence probability. If the dating is accurate or actually occurred.
I had not thought of a top down perspective in reference to the object. As I noted earlier, the right side of the object looks identical to the more clearly defined left side, right down to the line of water flowing from the alleged dragon's mouth. I had thought it might indicate anchor ropes at both ends of the ship. but structures and waterworks are an interesting possibility. It goes without saying that just because one did not see structures or evidence for them there during what looks to have been a brief "photo op" visit it doesn't mean that investigation of the area using means such as aerial photos would not reveal something.
I'm still inclined toward a ship, though this additional information has us back to the issue of "looks like" doesn't necessarily mean "is."
Scott and Troutman
ReplyDeleteWho knows what is under that ice in Antarctica. I'd like to know. Here's one for you gents. I don't know if you believe in abrupt climate change, but I'm a scientist and it is a fact. The refereed journal literature is loaded with all kinds of facts that are without rebuttal on the subject. Anyhow, the IPCC says that we have 11 years until catastrophic change. Their models; however, do not account for positive reinforcement feedback loops such as the ever increasing carbon (especially methane) pouring out of the Arctic. Now, we can see methane coming out of the tropics due to increased microbial activity in the decomposition process. The scientists are not warning of global dimming either. 11 years is a fantasy. It has already started. There are 1000's of farms being wiped out due to flooding in the central areas of the country and it's not going to get any better. Forget that you have read this because it is a matter of national security to keep people calm and it's not the best thing for your careers. Anyhow, I saw episode 3 and I really enjoyed it. I was up in that area of PA a few months ago and we missed touring some of the historic places where the underground railroad had been. Take care, gentleman
Climate change is a fact but not new. Global warming caused Bering land bridge to become the Bering Straight. Climate models prove one thing. The Chaos Theory is correct.
DeleteMy best subjects are science and history Scott ever heard of the bloody benders case
ReplyDeleteBrettany,
DeleteNever heard of he Bloody Benders case?
I hope to see this episode. I'm a history buff and I found out that I have Scandinavian genes. I know you were in my neck of the woods when you did your episode on America's Stonehenge. There's a rumor that in Hampton N.H. That there's a grave stone with runes that is the grave of Leif Erikson's brother Thorvald. According to some of the Sagas he was killed by natives.
ReplyDelete