a new angle on the Kensington Runestone

Please post your theories for discussion here. Expect plenty of questions and devil's advocacy.

Moderators: Jo, admiralbenbow, Keeled_over

Re: a new angle on the Kensington Runestone

Postby wayward on Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:08 pm

n4n224ccw wrote:I added the article as a possible source of information for you to further explore.

I’m neutral on the KRS and enjoy reading the arguments offered by both sides, but I doubt the route you suggest for a whole host of reasons.

There is no evidence which suggests Vikings were friendly with the natives rather parts of the sagas clearly mentions conflict.

The route you suggest from the Atlantic would need native co-operation, primarily from the Algonquin but would have them travel through non-Algonquin territory.

Without native co-operation these Vikings would find it impossible to transit the major native waterways without being detected and surviving the journey.

George Flom already published an excellent article during 1910 which details the easy route from Husdon Bay to this area of Minnesota which was used by the HBC during the late 1600s and beyond.

You might wish to read or to incorporate Cartier’s journals, for when he first met the natives near the vicinity of modern day Quebec City, he noted they were already familiar with Christian symbols. Perhaps the Viking monks were the teachers?





Firstly, Thanks for your interest.

Your proposed route takes our 1362 ad explorers on an over 3200 mile trip well into the Arctic Regions during the period considered as the beginning of "The Little Ice Age. At this time Atlantic pack ice was known to expand beginning in about 1250 ad, and radiocarbon dating of plants that were killed by glaciation begins about 1275. I have had a problem with this route since I first read about it years ago.
My proposed route of about 1900 miles faithfully follows a known latitude. That of the center of St, George's Bay in Nova Scotia, which is the same exact latitude as the location of the KRS when discovered. This route was well traveled by Natives as noted by both Cartier and Champlain.
I don't believe those who left the KRS were Vikings, but instead Scandinavian ex-Templars who as Cistercian Monks simply melted back into that Order after the troubles in Europe.
My own premises include ex-Templars building a fortress in Nova Scotia beginning in about 1308. This fortress could have been visited from time to time by others unhappy with european life and privy to information regarding its location, especially during the mid-14th century and the great famines in Europe.
As for a certain trouble with the Native populations, I don't understand why this would be true. The American Corps of Discovery of 1804 (who relied on the Natives for route information) did not have any problems until their return trip, and this was nothing they couldn't handle. Also many of the earlier explorers did not have serious problems with the natives unless they brought it on themselves (certain names come to mind here).
Last edited by wayward on Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
on the trail of the grail
wayward
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:31 pm
Location: traverse city,michigan

Re: a new angle on the Kensington Runestone

Postby wayward on Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:16 pm

n4n224ccw wrote:
You might wish to read or to incorporate Cartier’s journals, for when he first met the natives near the vicinity of modern day Quebec City, he noted they were already familiar with Christian symbols. Perhaps the Viking monks were the teachers?




There are of course other possibilites for the presence of christian symbols such as the Basque Fishermen who were said to frequent the region. And then there is my own premise of Knights Templars having arrived and lived in the area after about 1308 :wink:.
on the trail of the grail
wayward
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:31 pm
Location: traverse city,michigan

Re: a new angle on the Kensington Runestone

Postby wayward on Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:50 pm

. mistake, I used quote instead of edit.
on the trail of the grail
wayward
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:31 pm
Location: traverse city,michigan

Re: a new angle on the Kensington Runestone

Postby wayward on Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:41 am

wayward wrote:
n4n224ccw wrote:I added the article as a possible source of information for you to further explore.

I’m neutral on the KRS and enjoy reading the arguments offered by both sides, but I doubt the route you suggest for a whole host of reasons.



Your proposed route takes our 1362 ad explorers on an over 3200 mile trip well into the Arctic Regions during the period considered as the beginning of "The Little Ice Age. At this time Atlantic pack ice was known to expand beginning in about 1250 ad, and radiocarbon dating of plants that were killed by glaciation begins about 1275. I have had a problem with this route since I first read about it years ago.
My proposed route of about 1900 miles faithfully follows a known latitude. That of the center of St, George's Bay in Nova Scotia, which is the same exact latitude as the location of the KRS when discovered. This route was well traveled by Natives as noted by both Cartier and Champlain.



My point with this discussion is that, as sailors of the time used a navigation technique we now refer to as latitude sailing, explorers of an unknown land area would probably also travel a certain latitude. How could a person create a map without some kind of knowledge of their location?
on the trail of the grail
wayward
Digging for Diamonds
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:31 pm
Location: traverse city,michigan

Previous

Return to Your Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


Fatal error: ./cache/ is NOT writable. in /home/oakislan/public_html/forum/includes/acm/acm_file.php on line 103