Minnesota Lakes and Rivers, 14th century - a further query.
Eric Stevens
For the last several years an argument has been raging on and off
insci.archaeology about the authenticity of the so-called
Kensington Rune Stone which was found in 1898 in the roots of a
tree near the town of Kensington, Minnesota. This is a greywacke
stone incised with scandinavian runes telling the story of the fate
of an expedition which found itself in the area in the year 1362.
It seems to be generally agreed that if scandinavians did find
their way into the area they would have come from the North and
would have traveled by boat. Significant overland portages cannot
be ruled out.
All kinds of aspects of the KRS have been fought over but no one to
my knowledge has satisfactorily dealt with the problem posed by the
fact that the Scandinavians were traveling by boat. Also the knoll
where the KRS was found has not been an island (as referred to by
the text) in historical times although the land around it may have
been a swamp.
Scandinavians are very unlikely to have got where they apparently
did by boat in current times but what has not been satisfactorily
answered is the extent to which the lakes, rivers and general
catchment may have changed over the intervening 640 years. ...
At that point I enquired about isostatic rebound. More recently I have
read that an explanation is that in the 14th century the Red River
Valley was a glacial lake extending northward from the continental
divide at Brown's Valley, Minnesota, to Lake Winnipeg.
What I would like to know is, is this statement correct, what evidence
is there for this suggestion and what would have been the effect on
the navigability by water in the Kensington area for someone
approaching from the North (possibly ex the Nelson River)? I would be
most grateful for any light that can be thrown on these questions.
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
INGER E. JOHANSSON
Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:97aujs897uiv3f2vt...@4ax.com...
> On 21 May I posted an article which commenced as follows:
>
> For the last several years an argument has been raging on and off
> insci.archaeology about the authenticity of the so-called
> Kensington Rune Stone which was found in 1898 in the roots of a
> tree near the town of Kensington, Minnesota. This is a greywacke
> stone incised with scandinavian runes telling the story of the fate
> of an expedition which found itself in the area in the year 1362.
>
> It seems to be generally agreed that if scandinavians did find
> their way into the area they would have come from the North and
> would have traveled by boat. Significant overland portages cannot
> be ruled out.
>
> All kinds of aspects of the KRS have been fought over but no one to
> my knowledge has satisfactorily dealt with the problem posed by the
> fact that the Scandinavians were traveling by boat. Also the knoll
> where the KRS was found has not been an island (as referred to by
> the text) in historical times although the land around it may have
> been a swamp.
I guess that the persons who have discussed the geological problem re. KRS
haven't noticed that the text doesn't say that the boat was where KRS was
carved but ": fro : vinland : vest : vi : hade : lager : ved : 2 : skjar :
en : dags : rise : norr : fro : deno : sten : " giving one information only
that a day-trip north of the stone there was a skjar(the same as today's
Scandinavian word "skär"(=small cliff in the sea or a cliff out from land
into the sea). No word what so ever that the boat had been drawn, carried or
lifted to the area where KRS was found - in fact just the same way that many
young and old household-fishermen do today rowing a boat to a cliff walking
a distance to find better fishing places if the place where the boat is
isn't safe enough to fish from or if the water is to low in that area to
find fish in.
>
> Scandinavians are very unlikely to have got where they apparently
> did by boat in current times but what has not been satisfactorily
> answered is the extent to which the lakes, rivers and general
> catchment may have changed over the intervening 640 years. ...
>
> At that point I enquired about isostatic rebound. More recently I have
> read that an explanation is that in the 14th century the Red River
> Valley was a glacial lake extending northward from the continental
> divide at Brown's Valley, Minnesota, to Lake Winnipeg.
Eric,
I have read the same yesterday. Since I have to deliver a paper next friday
for my course in "Mark"(Land) and Water regarding the situation in all of
Canada, (including valuation of soilconditions) I will return to this
question after the papers have been accepted.
Inger E
PS. I am studying B-level Nature Geography as well as B-level Culture
Geography this term.
IEJ
David Ramalho
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On 21 May I posted an article which commenced as follows:
>
> For the last several years an argument has been raging on and off
> insci.archaeology about the authenticity of the so-called
> Kensington Rune Stone which was found in 1898 in the roots of a
> tree near the town of Kensington, Minnesota. This is a greywacke
> stone incised with scandinavian runes telling the story of the fate
> of an expedition which found itself in the area in the year 1362.
< big snip >
> At that point I enquired about isostatic rebound. More recently I have
> read that an explanation is that in the 14th century the Red River
> Valley was a glacial lake extending northward from the continental
> divide at Brown's Valley, Minnesota, to Lake Winnipeg.
>
> What I would like to know is, is this statement correct, what evidence
> is there for this suggestion and what would have been the effect on
> the navigability by water in the Kensington area for someone
> approaching from the North (possibly ex the Nelson River)? I would be
> most grateful for any light that can be thrown on these questions.
The glacial lake that you are referring to is called 'Lake Agassiz'.
It drained away about 8,000 years ago. Sorry, but that theory will not
work.
References:
Pleistocene Glaciation
- Lake Agassiz http://204.112.230.2/minsci/geology/agassiz.htm
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
- Glacial Lake Agassiz and the Red River Valley
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/redriver/agassiz.html
THE GLACIAL LAKE AGASSIZ. By WARREN UPHAM. (1885)
http://www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/govdocs/text/lakeagassiz/preface.html
A study of Lake Agassiz by Peter Schultz
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/ashworth/g304/paper/
Regards
David Ramalho
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Good morning Eric
>
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>> On 21 May I posted an article which commenced as follows:
>>
>> For the last several years an argument has been raging on and off
>> insci.archaeology about the authenticity of the so-called
>> Kensington Rune Stone which was found in 1898 in the roots of a
>> tree near the town of Kensington, Minnesota. This is a greywacke
>> stone incised with scandinavian runes telling the story of the fate
>> of an expedition which found itself in the area in the year 1362.
>
> < big snip >
>
>> At that point I enquired about isostatic rebound. More recently I have
>> read that an explanation is that in the 14th century the Red River
>> Valley was a glacial lake extending northward from the continental
>> divide at Brown's Valley, Minnesota, to Lake Winnipeg.
>>
>> What I would like to know is, is this statement correct, what evidence
>> is there for this suggestion and what would have been the effect on
>> the navigability by water in the Kensington area for someone
>> approaching from the North (possibly ex the Nelson River)? I would be
>> most grateful for any light that can be thrown on these questions.
>
> The glacial lake that you are referring to is called 'Lake Agassiz'.
>It drained away about 8,000 years ago. Sorry, but that theory will not
>work.
I'm aware of Lake Aggaziz, reputed to have existed 14,000 to 11,500
years ago. My suspicion is that the author of the article in which I
read the reference latched onto the 14,000 years and turned it into
the 14th century. I didn't want to mention that as I didn't want to
give people an opportunity to start throwing stones from the outset.
After all, for all I know of the local geography, there could have
been a lesser glacial lake in the 14th century.
---- references snipped, but thanks ----
Archae Solenhofen
>On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 05:10:49 GMT, David Ramalho <earth...@home.com>
>wrote:
<snip>
>I'm aware of Lake Aggaziz, reputed to have existed 14,000 to 11,500
>years ago. My suspicion is that the author of the article in which I
>read the reference latched onto the 14,000 years and turned it into
>the 14th century. I didn't want to mention that as I didn't want to
>give people an opportunity to start throwing stones from the outset.
>After all, for all I know of the local geography, there could have
>been a lesser glacial lake in the 14th century.
Only 15-20 m of uplift has occurred in the Kinsington area in the
last 6000 years. The area has a free-air gravity anomaly somewhere
between +10 to -5 which would mean that the area today (and
presumably in the 1400) was slowly subsiding to very slowly
uplifting. Apparently the Vikings did not seem to have too much
trouble traveling around Northwestern Ontario if one believes the
credibility of other "artifacts" like the Beardmore relics. This is
rather surprising since this area is very very rugged and not
somewhere that a normal human being would prefer to go ;-).
The area around Lake Superior also has the highest
concentration of Norwegian and Finlandish descent outside their
respective homelands. The area appears to draw them like a
magnet for some reason...
Archae Solenhofen (solen...@usa.net)
Jonathan Stone
Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 05:10:49 GMT, David Ramalho <earth...@home.com>
>wrote:
[...]
>> The glacial lake that you are referring to is called 'Lake Agassiz'.
>>It drained away about 8,000 years ago. Sorry, but that theory will not
>>work.
>
>I'm aware of Lake Aggaziz, reputed to have existed 14,000 to 11,500
>years ago. My suspicion is that the author of the article in which I
>read the reference latched onto the 14,000 years and turned it into
>the 14th century. I didn't want to mention that as I didn't want to
>give people an opportunity to start throwing stones from the outset.
And such a fair-handed, even, and scholarly approach _that_ is, to not
report relevant data. Who was it who recently accused professional
scholars of dishonesty, over selective reporting? Eric, Mr. Athy,
or someone else?
>After all, for all I know of the local geography, there could have
>been a lesser glacial lake in the 14th century.
But that implies glaciation, post the draining of lake agassiz, to
supply the glacial meltwater for this hypothetical lake. Where did
the glacier go? Where is the evidence of flooding? where is _any_
geological evidence of the area being underwater in the 14th century?
INGER E. JOHANSSON
> >Eric Stevens wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21 May I posted an article which commenced as follows:
> >>
> >> For the last several years an argument has been raging on and off
> >> insci.archaeology about the authenticity of the so-called
> >> Kensington Rune Stone which was found in 1898 in the roots of a
> >> tree near the town of Kensington, Minnesota. This is a greywacke
> >> stone incised with scandinavian runes telling the story of the fate
> >> of an expedition which found itself in the area in the year 1362.
> >
> > < big snip >
> >
> >> At that point I enquired about isostatic rebound. More recently I have
> >> read that an explanation is that in the 14th century the Red River
> >> Valley was a glacial lake extending northward from the continental
> >> divide at Brown's Valley, Minnesota, to Lake Winnipeg.
> >>
> >> What I would like to know is, is this statement correct, what evidence
> >> is there for this suggestion and what would have been the effect on
> >> the navigability by water in the Kensington area for someone
> >> approaching from the North (possibly ex the Nelson River)? I would be
> >> most grateful for any light that can be thrown on these questions.
> >
David wrote:
> > The glacial lake that you are referring to is called 'Lake Agassiz'.
> >It drained away about 8,000 years ago. Sorry, but that theory will not
> >work.
>
David,
I guess you by this also say that you know for certain that the "Lake
Agassiz" didn't cause the new Lakes we see today to be caused due to
landrise????? That's rubbish! Further more, I am doing my paper of the
geological conditions for soil and water in Canada for the moment, I am
pretty sure that there was Stone Age Lake existing into Modern times(as well
as Bronze Age and Iron Age Lakes created when landrise caused water in those
lakes to be cut of from Ocean and later on from other water). As you are
aware of if you have read that part re the Natural Landscapes of Canada and
Northern America what happened was following
10000 BP Lake Agassiz and Lake Minong as well as Lake Chippewa, Lake Stanley
and Lake Erie as well as Lake Ontario, Lake Barlow and Early L Nipissing
existed in the area south and west of today's Hudson Bay.
Aproximative 8400 BP the Lake Agassiz had withdrawn but a new lake had seen
the light due to landrise cutting the connection between Lake Agassis and
the new lake south east of Lake Agassiz. Existing at that time were also
Lake Chippewa, Lake Nipissing, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario the later
lakes(all but the two first ones) had connection eastward thru St Lawrence
Estuary with the Ocean. that connection still existed at least 7500 BP. At
that time the Ice Coat had withdrawn to west today's Hudson Bay's
"southwestern corner" crossing today's lake(south of the Ice Coat Lake
Antevs was and there also was a small lake north of Lake Nipissing's western
"arm") the Ice Coat over mid Hudson Bay and the land west of Hudson Bay that
exists today didn't see the Ice Coat withdrawel before aproximative 8000
BP(6000 BC).
7500 BP Hudson Bay had been totally free from the Ice Coat's grip. But note
that the that times Hudson Bay's area included much of today's land in west,
south and east of today's Hudson Bay. Note also that Lake Nipissing(later on
to be divided by landrise to today's Great Lakes) didn't have the shape as
you might believe when looking at today's map.
I haven't yet started to discuss the relative crustal movements in the Great
Lakes drainage basin nor do I intend to take the hydrological situation or
the soils' groundsituation which have impacts on water drainage as well. All
I intend to make you understand is that as late as the 16th Century there
still was several small lakes in the area around where Kensington-stone was
found in late 19th Century. A map drawn close in time of the finding shows
that land north of KRS-site still was muddy or swampy.....
As you all kow landrise is a retard movement and you also know that the Ice
Coat withdraw towards northeast. The landrise for a point A and a point B
less than 100 miles from each other can and will show different numbers for
the last 700 years(not to discuss over longer periods). Today's null-level
rise isn't the same as it was during the 18th Century let alone during the
14th Century and so on.
For further reading I suggest you to look at:
Andrews J T, A Geomorphological Study of Post-Glacial Uplift with Particular
Reference to Northern Canada, London 1970
Curry JR Late Quaternary History, Continental Shelves of the United States
in Wright, HD Jr and DC Frey(eds), The Quaternary of the United States,
Princeton university Press 1965
Fairbridge RW Eustatic Changes in Sea Level in Physics and Chemistry of the
Earth, Vol 4, New York, 1961
among many other earlier and later studies waiting to be read and considered
when this matter is discussed.
Inger E
> I'm aware of Lake Aggaziz, reputed to have existed 14,000 to 11,500
> years ago. My suspicion is that the author of the article in which I
> read the reference latched onto the 14,000 years and turned it into
> the 14th century. I didn't want to mention that as I didn't want to
> give people an opportunity to start throwing stones from the outset.
> After all, for all I know of the local geography, there could have
> been a lesser glacial lake in the 14th century.
>
INGER E. JOHANSSON
you better start by reading for example Bird, the natural landscapes of
Canada, a study in regional earth science. 1972 ISBN 0-471-073709.
It isn't one of the more Scientific Studies that are to be found, but it's
good enough for your level of knowledge in this discussion. On page 63 you
first will fig 5-1(schematic drawing) showing thatthe sea levels in the
Oceans 1000 years ago was aproximative 5 meter's lower than today. But to
understand what impact that have in the area discussed you also have to take
a closer look at Fig 4-6(page 61) where the relative crustal movements in
the Great Lakes drainage basin are shown. You also have to remember that you
can't start your counting from today's situation but that you need to do a
carefully study for each place you are discussing including at least
400-1000 points around any of the Great Lakes from the time each point had
the Ice Coat withdrawn as well as from the time each point made it over
water. If you are to do a careful study of the actual situation you also
needs to have readings for every point mentioned above for the last 100-150
years as well as good knowledge of the soil, the hydrological situation and
many other details. Given all those facts it's possible to use any skill you
might have in regards of Mathematic curv calculation for times between the
older dates and the new dates.
The readings you got have to be drawn on maps for you to check a certain
periods accurate reading after local divergenses between landrise in an area
and in a certain point in that area before you can come up with assumption
such as those below if your assumption are to be trustworthy at all!
Inger E
Jonathan Stone <jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:8hsn94$9t2$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <2mr2ksk5pm3drh0id...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
> >On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 05:10:49 GMT, David Ramalho <earth...@home.com>
> >wrote:
>
> [...]
> >> The glacial lake that you are referring to is called 'Lake Agassiz'.
> >>It drained away about 8,000 years ago. Sorry, but that theory will not
> >>work.
> >
> >I'm aware of Lake Aggaziz, reputed to have existed 14,000 to 11,500
> >years ago. My suspicion is that the author of the article in which I
> >read the reference latched onto the 14,000 years and turned it into
> >the 14th century. I didn't want to mention that as I didn't want to
> >give people an opportunity to start throwing stones from the outset.
>
> And such a fair-handed, even, and scholarly approach _that_ is, to not
> report relevant data. Who was it who recently accused professional
> scholars of dishonesty, over selective reporting? Eric, Mr. Athy,
> or someone else?
>
>
> >After all, for all I know of the local geography, there could have
> >been a lesser glacial lake in the 14th century.
>
INGER E. JOHANSSON
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:MPG.13ae8b26b...@news.cableinet.co.uk
...
> In article <98q8ks0kokm4q2lhk...@4ax.com>,
este...@ip.co.nz
> says...
> > Maybe not a moonshot at all if there were established settlements in
> > the region of the Great Lakes and even further south at Heavener and
> > Poteau.
> >
> But the route to Heavener was supposedly through the Gulf of Mexico.
No Doug, I have other information re Heavener route but that will have to
wait to later. For the moment you could look more carefully on the lines i
wrote regarding the waterways open from Great Lakes to other areas....
Inger E
>
> Doug
> --
> Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
> Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
> Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
> Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
INGER E. JOHANSSON
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 03:25:38 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
>
> >Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> writes:
> >
> >>On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:15:05 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
> >
> >>>"INGER E. JOHANSSON" <inger_e....@telia.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I guess that the persons who have discussed the geological problem re.
KRS
> >>>>haven't noticed that the text doesn't say that the boat was where KRS
was
> >>>>carved but ": fro : vinland :
> >>>
> >>>supposed to be?
> >
> >>Anywhere from Novia Scotia to Vancouver Island and most places in
> >>between. Pick your theory.
> >>>
> >>>In examining the connection with the supposed Knudsen voyage sent by
King
> >>>Magnus to re-establish contact with the Greenland colony, can we assume
that
> >>>the expedition paid a visit to Vinld immediately after stopping over at
> >>>Greenland?
> >
> >>No. The most common theory is that they come in via any one of three
> >>routes from Hudson Bay and were heading up the Red River of the North
> >>for some reason.
> >
> >I am sorry if I was not clear enough. My point is: the stone says that
they
> >were from Vinland. If we are to consider that that expedition was sent by
> >Magnus, it originated in Norway and made what likely stopovers? If the
stone
> >can be believed, they made at least one stopover in Vinland. Whether or
not
> >they stopped in Greenland, too, (since thatwas the stated goal of the
> >Knudsen expedition, if I understand correctly) is probably unimportant.
What
> >*is* important, though, is that the stone DOES not refer to either the
> >expedition as being under royal charter, nor does it give the true
> >origination (Norway). To me, this is the sort of error that a
> >nationalistically inspired hoaxer would make, having heard of Vinland,
> >but not of Kndsen.
>
> True, but they only had a limited amount of stone and time. What you
> state is grounds for suspicion but not proof of forgery.
I don't agree on the last sentence, but please explain what you mean.
> Re Vinland,
> the message would make sense if Vinland was in the Great Lakes area.
That's what I have been trying to tell you all for the last three years.
Vinland = Great Lake District was what I heard from the Elderly in Northern
Bohuslaen during the 1950th. There were people from Tanum who went beyond
New Foundland into Hudson Bay fishing as late as before the Second World
War..... One of them died ten years ago......
Inger E
INGER E. JOHANSSON
Sawfish <m...@q7.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:9607803...@q7.q7.com...
> Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> writes:
>
> >On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:15:05 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
>
> >>"INGER E. JOHANSSON" <inger_e....@telia.com> writes:
> >>In examining the connection with the supposed Knudsen voyage sent by
King
> >>Magnus to re-establish contact with the Greenland colony, can we assume
that
> >>the expedition paid a visit to Vinld immediately after stopping over at
> >>Greenland?
>
> >No. The most common theory is that they come in via any one of three
> >routes from Hudson Bay and were heading up the Red River of the North
> >for some reason.
>
> I am sorry if I was not clear enough. My point is: the stone says that
they
> were from Vinland.
I am curious. How do you read the original text transcribed into Medieval
Scandinavian to reach that conclusion? Or have you only been looking at an
English-translation of the Medieval Scandinavian text which in itself is a
transcription of the futharks????
>If we are to consider that that expedition was sent by
> Magnus, it originated in Norway and made what likely stopovers? If the
stone
> can be believed, they made at least one stopover in Vinland. Whether or
not
> they stopped in Greenland, too, (since thatwas the stated goal of the
> Knudsen expedition, if I understand correctly) is probably unimportant.
Greenland isn't unimportant since they obviously did stop there. Please go
back looking for the texts that someone in Norway refered to re. an area of
Western Settlements being abonded...... (I doubt that the Norse and the
Goths who travelled with the expedition had the slightest idea that there
actually was over 40 farms in the Western Settlement. They may have gone
looking in one or some but certainly not in all farm areas because it can be
proven that people still lived in some as late as 15th Century......
>What
> *is* important, though, is that the stone DOES not refer to either the
> expedition as being under royal charter, nor does it give the true
> origination (Norway). To me, this is the sort of error that a
> nationalistically inspired hoaxer would make, having heard of Vinland,
> but not of Kndsen.
I doubt your assumption, but never the less you have to cross the road of
finding a person with special knowledge in re. futharks and written 14th
Swedish Diplomas the later wasn't easily read before an edited transcribtion
was made(for 1358 AD in 1982 AD). If you can't cross that road and you can't
place the person knowing more than any Scholar did before late 20th Century
than your assumption has no value at all. You have to make sure what the
underlying( = not spoken)premisses needed for an assumption to be true are
and look for a premiss that not only is necessary to fullfil but is enough
to fullfil in order to make it at least likely that your assumption is true.
No matter what you believe, or whom you are(Titles, grades etc) there are
conditions to be met in order to make an assumption plausible and those
conditions can be described in premisses.
>
> If the inscription is not a hoax, ascribing the origin of the expedition
as
> Vinland--likely long abandoned by 1362-- rather than Bergen is somewhat
> surprising. While there is no accounting for what men will do in dire
> extremis, if they sought to memorialize themselves, one would expect them
to
> name the expedition, if it were under royal charter. If it was indeed the
> Knudsen expedition, it was more like a moonshoot, not a mundane drive to
the
> county dump.
NO, the stones in Russia aren't such that the persons involved always are
named. Neither could you start your assumption with the described origin of
the expedition since that isn't what's to be read on the stone or in the
transcribtion into Medieval Scandinavian language. Since that isn't the case
you later assumptions at least for the moment aren't relavant to KRS-case.
Inger E
Doug Weller
says...
>
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 05:49:38 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <98q8ks0kokm4q2lhk...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
> >says...
> >> Maybe not a moonshot at all if there were established settlements in
> >> the region of the Great Lakes and even further south at Heavener and
> >> Poteau.
> >>
> >But the route to Heavener was supposedly through the Gulf of Mexico.
> >
>
>
'Supposedly' -- which means someone has suggested that, eg at least some of the
people supporting the Heavener/Viking link (rather than suggested the
Heavener stone/LaSalle link).
Sawfish
>Sawfish <m...@q7.com> skrev i
>diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:9607803...@q7.q7.com...
>> Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> writes:
>>
>> >On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:15:05 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
>>
>> >>"INGER E. JOHANSSON" <inger_e....@telia.com> writes:
><snip>
>> >>In examining the connection with the supposed Knudsen voyage sent by
>King
>> >>Magnus to re-establish contact with the Greenland colony, can we assume
>that
>> >>the expedition paid a visit to Vinld immediately after stopping over at
>> >>Greenland?
>>
>> >No. The most common theory is that they come in via any one of three
>> >routes from Hudson Bay and were heading up the Red River of the North
>> >for some reason.
>>
>> I am sorry if I was not clear enough. My point is: the stone says that
>they
>> were from Vinland.
>I am curious. How do you read the original text transcribed into Medieval
>Scandinavian to reach that conclusion? Or have you only been looking at an
>English-translation of the Medieval Scandinavian text which in itself is a
>transcription of the futharks????
The latter. I relied on posted material, some of which you supplied in an
earlier post.
No source that I've seen indicates that there's any dispute that the KRS
states that the expedition came from Vinland. Is this point at issue?
>>If we are to consider that that expedition was sent by
>> Magnus, it originated in Norway and made what likely stopovers? If the
>stone
>> can be believed, they made at least one stopover in Vinland. Whether or
>not
>> they stopped in Greenland, too, (since thatwas the stated goal of the
>> Knudsen expedition, if I understand correctly) is probably unimportant.
>Greenland isn't unimportant since they obviously did stop there.
Why is it obvious? Is it documented?
>Please go
>back looking for the texts that someone in Norway refered to re. an area of
>Western Settlements being abonded...... (I doubt that the Norse and the
>Goths who travelled with the expedition had the slightest idea that there
>actually was over 40 farms in the Western Settlement. They may have gone
>looking in one or some but certainly not in all farm areas because it can be
>proven that people still lived in some as late as 15th Century......
I'm not sure why you bring this point up in this discussion. All we are
doing is speculating why the authors of the stone mention Vinland as the
origin of the expedition. Please explain why the Western Settlement has any
bearing at all, according to the text of the KRS, as I understand it.
>>What
>> *is* important, though, is that the stone DOES not refer to either the
>> expedition as being under royal charter, nor does it give the true
>> origination (Norway). To me, this is the sort of error that a
>> nationalistically inspired hoaxer would make, having heard of Vinland,
>> but not of Kndsen.
>I doubt your assumption, but never the less you have to cross the road of
>finding a person with special knowledge in re. futharks and written 14th
>Swedish Diplomas the later wasn't easily read before an edited transcribtion
>was made(for 1358 AD in 1982 AD). If you can't cross that road and you can't
>place the person knowing more than any Scholar did before late 20th Century
>than your assumption has no value at all.
My assumption is not that the stone was inscribed by a 19th C hoaxer, but
that, independent of the validity of the runic characters, the text a) does
not identify the expedition as a royal charter, as one might expect; and b)
that the stone names the origin of the expedition as a place that may have
been known to--in fact, in the forefront of the awareness of--a 19th C.
hoaxer.
Your assumption, if I read it correctly, is that you are sufficiently certain
in your own analysis of the the runic characters used to carve the KRS that
you, prima face, disregard the obvious incongruities in the content and
begin with the assumption that, if the characters are correct, as you,
personally, verify that they are, whatever the stone says is legitmate, and
that the inquiry should proceed from that point.
Is this a correct statement of your initial position on the stone?
>You have to make sure what the
>underlying( = not spoken)premisses needed for an assumption to be true are
>and look for a premiss that not only is necessary to fullfil but is enough
>to fullfil in order to make it at least likely that your assumption is true.
My point is not that the stone is necessarily false, but that it very likely
did not originate from the Knudsen expedition. The reason? Because the
translated content does not conform to a reasonable expectancy of what might
be inscribed by the surviving members of such an expedition (if there was
one), of royal charter, and originating somewhere other than vinland. In
content, instead, comes closer to indicating the historical understanding of
a 19th C hoaxer. I feel fairly comfortable in this because, unlike you, I
have little certainty that the runic character set is legitmately
contemporaneous with mid 14th C Scandinavian. If I did, I might agree with
you; and perhaps not.
>No matter what you believe, or whom you are(Titles, grades etc) there are
>conditions to be met in order to make an assumption plausible and those
>conditions can be described in premisses.
..and whether those constraining conditions are adequately met is often a
subjective opinion.
>>
>> If the inscription is not a hoax, ascribing the origin of the expedition
>as
>> Vinland--likely long abandoned by 1362-- rather than Bergen is somewhat
>> surprising. While there is no accounting for what men will do in dire
>> extremis, if they sought to memorialize themselves, one would expect them
>to
>> name the expedition, if it were under royal charter. If it was indeed the
>> Knudsen expedition, it was more like a moonshoot, not a mundane drive to
>the
>> county dump.
>NO, the stones in Russia aren't such that the persons involved always are
>named. Neither could you start your assumption with the described origin of
>the expedition since that isn't what's to be read on the stone or in the
>transcribtion into Medieval Scandinavian language. Since that isn't the case
>you later assumptions at least for the moment aren't relavant to KRS-case.
Please, are you saying that the inscription of the KRS DOES NOT indicate that
the expedition originated in Vinland? If this is true, where does the stone
indicate that the expedition originated, and what, specifically is the
mention of vinland, if it's there at all?
This *specific* information (is vinalnd mentioned; is it named as the
origin of the exepdition; if not, is the origin named?) will significantly
advance the inquiry into the KRS, in my opinion.
BTW, I hate to ask, but do you have a website where you've posted your
translation of the KRS inscription? Your translation would be of great value
to the group's discussion. If you have a translation, please let us know
where to view it.
Thanks!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant was awful--but at least the portions
were large!" --Sawfish
Robert Ehrlich
to Minnesota a millenium ago. the climate in Scandinavia is very mild
compared to Minnesota (which has a "siberian" climate) along with bigger
mosquitos and black flies. Norwegian farmer jokes aside, these guys wer
most likely not fool enough to travel 2000km to loot and pillage the
sauger fisheries.
Michael Zalar
Robert Ehrlich wrote:
> As a native Minnesotan, why the hell would anyone from Scandinavia hike
> to Minnesota a millenium ago. the climate in Scandinavia is very mild
> compared to Minnesota (which has a "siberian" climate) along with bigger
> mosquitos and black flies. Norwegian farmer jokes aside, these guys wer
> most likely not fool enough to travel 2000km to loot and pillage the
> sauger fisheries.
Cathay. The Land of the Great Khan. China, with all her wealth
The fellow were looking for a route to the riches of the East. A manuscript from
1330 by Friar Oderic notes that the Khan had white ger-falcons. I need to double
check this, but similar white falcons were found in Greenland. Perhaps thinks the
King (or Paul Knuttson), Greenland is closer to Cathay than we think. The Eskimos
look rather like the descriptons we have of Mongols (Columbus certainly thought so,
having seen a pair of storm wrecked Eskimos years before his famous voyage). Could
it be that Greenland is within trading distance of the Khan's court?
The possibilty of wealth is a great motivator - it may certainly have been a prime
cause for this expedition.
Michael
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <qn99kss5t8f52qmpu...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 05:49:38 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <98q8ks0kokm4q2lhk...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>> >says...
>> >> Maybe not a moonshot at all if there were established settlements in
>> >> the region of the Great Lakes and even further south at Heavener and
>> >> Poteau.
>> >>
>> >But the route to Heavener was supposedly through the Gulf of Mexico.
>> >
>>
>> Not the "the" route to Heavener. "A" route to Heavener.
>>
>'Supposedly' -- which means someone has suggested that, eg at least some of the
>people supporting the Heavener/Viking link (rather than suggested the
>Heavener stone/LaSalle link).
If you don't know any different, the Gulf of Mexico is the obvious
way. But as it happens there are alternatives.
Eric Stevens
--- snip ---
>>Maybe not a moonshot at all if there were established settlements in
>>the region of the Great Lakes and even further south at Heavener and
>>Poteau.
>
>WHOA! I follow you, but this crystalizes, for me, the major problem with
>the KRS: to support much of its content and provenance, we have to stack
>one unfounded, undocumented, and just plain wildly specualtive supposition,
>one on top of the other.
I don't think we do. Its not necessary for there to have been
settlements further south for the KRS to be either genuine or for
there to be a valid reason for a party of Norse to be in the area. I
was merely responding to your comment about 'a moon-shot' by pointing
out that they may have been following an already established route.
>
>We know, more or less, that the composition of the stone was not
>inconsistent with locally available stones. We don't know if the
>composition might match more closely stones readily available in
>Scandinavia.
Are you suggesting it was carved in Scandinavia and then carried to
Kensington? I suppose its possible but why on earth should anyone want
to do that?
>
>We have pretty solid evidence that Olman dug the stone out of the ground:
>he signed an affidavit to that effect, and so did others. I don't know what
>immigrant Swedes were like, but if they were anyhthing like my 1st
>generation grandparents, they wanted no friction with the law, and wouldn't
>risk prosecution for an elaborate practical joke. So, by default, I accept
>that Olman found it, as stated. His desription of the root system may not
>be accurate; after he got to thinking about it and hearing about the idea
>that it was perhaps proof of the Norse glory days, a minor flattening of a
>root may have become a major and dramatic idicator, in his imagination.
>This would be especially true if he signed the affidavit several years
>after the exhumation.
>
>We have pretty good agreement that the stone, and carving, was equally
>weathered. We don't *really* know if the weathing indicated 5 years,
>500 years, or 5000 years.
Winchell (Professor of geology and state geologist) seemed to think it
was consistent with 500 years.
>In the matter of runic characters, we have a huge disagreement, to the
>point that at this time I'd have to exclude the runic character argument as
>providing more heat than light. Until further, OBJECTIVE, analysis is done
>(or until I gain more knowledge by additional reading) I'd not even
>consider it.
I agree. There are far too many entrenched position which have been
taken to make me happy with anything less than seeing for myself.
>
>In the matter of the linguistic content, we have better agreement that the
>vocabulary could, indeed, been appropriate for what we know of the time. It
>is still by no means settled, in my mind.
>
>As far as what a bunch or Norsemen may have been doing in NW Minnesota in
>rthe mid 14th C., we have some real problems. There is no known reason for
>them to have been anywhere near that location. There have been some
>fumbling attempts to link them up with a *supposed* expedition to Greenland
>(*Greenland*, for god's sake! Probably about 1500 miles away!). The more we
>follow this direction, the more we must pile one supposition upon another,
>until, in the end, we certainly do have an intriguing adventure story, but,
>as wiser folk than I have said, "that's not the way to bet."
I'm not entirely certain that all the parts are not already in front
of us and its just that we don't want to see the picture.
>
>For the textual analysis of the runestone, we have a fairly confused and
>vague story that in part contradicts attempts to support its origin as a
>supposed known expedition.
See http://www.freeyellow.com/members2/barque/mandan.html
In a letter to Holand, G.M. Gathorne-Hardy, assistant Librarian of
the British House of Lords and author of "The Norse Discoverers of
America" (Oxford 1921), made the following observations about the
Kensington Stone's hypothetical forger:
"(a) He is a scholar of considerable attainments. He can read Latin
and is familiar with the rare work of Ole Worm in that language. He
quotes correctly the medieval and not the modern version of the
Lord's Prayer. He is a pioneer in the historical research leading to
the association of Paul Knutson with American exploration. The date
and admixture of Swedes and Norwegians are together beyond the
chance of coincidence. He is also a bit of a geologist for he
recognizes that the site of his inscription was once an island....
"(b) Whether scholar or illiterate, he is evidently a silly ass....
He taxes his scholarship and his imagination to the limit to tell a
long and circumstantial story, introducing figures--almost an
unknown feature in runic inscriptions--and saying prima facie
impossible things as that he is on an island 14 days from the sea.
This all is not only superfluous, but increases with every word the
chance of a fatal slip.... What is left on the other side? Merely
the linguistic peculiarities--a two-edged weapon--for modern
scholars are more likely to write grammatically than a
fourteenth-century Swedish sailor...."
>
>We have little knowledge about how or why 19th C Scandinavian immigrants
>might have felt about their, well "scandinavianhood," or if they might have
>been strongly motivated by wishful nationalistic or regional pride to cook
>up a hoax.
>
>We have some reason to believe that Ohman was not capable of a) using a
>chisel with the evident skill that was used on the KRS, or b) knew enough
>of runic characters to have written the stone, even if he had the skill.
Doug Weller will no doubt tell you that Ohman was regarded by his son
as being a 'fair' stone mason. My response is to question the standard
against which he is being judged - builder of farm walls or builder of
monuments. I mention the latter as the characters of the KRS seem to
be competently done as though by a person familar with the carving of
characters into stone (or something).
>
>And that's where I am now. I'd like more information on:
>
>a) the unique geoplogical properties of tyhe KRS (to eliminate a non-local
>origin);
>
>b) the physical properties of the weathering of the surface of the KRS and
>the surface of the inscribed characters;
>
>c) an unbiased, objective analysis of the characters and vocabulary,
>preferrably done by multiple, expert, disinterested parties,
I guess the judge felt the same way about the selection of the jury
for the OJ Simpson trial. :-)
>
>d) some cultural history of whether the was a "Scandinavian pride"
>movement afoot in the world at the time of the KRS discovery, and
>
>e) a ride ina time machine, so that, I, myself, could oversee the actual
>events unfolding on runestone hill, from 1362 through Nov 1898 (is that the
>right date?)
>
> >:^)
>
>
>>>
>>>So what? I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the KRS is genuine,
>>>textual evidence indicates to me that it was most likely NOT the supposed
>>>Knudsen expedition. If true, perhaps the inquiry needs to shift back to:
>>>
>>>a) the uniqueness of the geological composition of the stone (this is far
>>>from settled, in my opinion);
Winchell seemed to think the stone was of a local origin, but a second
opinion would not hurt.
--- snip ----
Eric Stevens
<inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
>
>Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> skrev i
>diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:98q8ks0kokm4q2lhk...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 03:25:38 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
--- snip ----
>> >I am sorry if I was not clear enough. My point is: the stone says that
>> >they were from Vinland. If we are to consider that that expedition was
>> >sent by Magnus, it originated in Norway and made what likely stopovers?
>> >If the stone can be believed, they made at least one stopover in Vinland.
>> >Whether or not they stopped in Greenland, too, (since thatwas the stated
>> >goal of the Knudsen expedition, if I understand correctly) is probably
>> >unimportant. What *is* important, though, is that the stone DOES not refer
>> >to either the expedition as being under royal charter, nor does it give
>> >the true origination (Norway). To me, this is the sort of error that a
>> >nationalistically inspired hoaxer would make, having heard of Vinland,
>> >but not of Kndsen.
>>
>> True, but they only had a limited amount of stone and time. What you
>> state is grounds for suspicion but not proof of forgery.
>
>I don't agree on the last sentence, but please explain what you mean.
>
Sawfish was complaining that he did not see everything in the message
of the stone which he would expect to see there. I was pointing out
that they had presumably found the best slab of rock in a territory
possibly inhabited by hostiles. They had to make do with what they had
got. They had a limited time to carve the message and a finite amount
of room in which to carve it. Once the stone was full and once they
had run out of time, that was it.
------- snip --------
Doug Weller
> Perhaps thinks the
> King (or Paul Knuttson), Greenland is closer to Cathay than we think. The Eskimos
> look rather like the descriptons we have of Mongols (Columbus certainly thought so,
> having seen a pair of storm wrecked Eskimos years before his famous voyage). Could
> it be that Greenland is within trading distance of the Khan's court?
>
> The possibilty of wealth is a great motivator - it may certainly have been a prime
> cause for this expedition.
>
centuries of Norse contact with North Americans that existed at this time.
But you might be able to help with something -- what is the source of the story
about storm-wrecked Eskimos? I've heard something similar, although what I read
(from an early 19th century book with no source listed) said they were dead and
that they didn't resemble any known race.
Jonathan Stone
Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 11:11:38 GMT, "INGER E. JOHANSSON"
><inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
>I didn't see the original of this as, for obvious reasons, I
>kill-filed Jonathon Stone some time ago. For the record, I didn't
>mention Lake Aggaziz as I had no desire to ask a leading question. As
>it turned out Inge Johansson has provided a great deal of useful
>information.
Hah! For any lurkers:
Obvious reasons == i was as clear and persistent at pointing out
Eric's inconsistencies, fallacies, and distortions of what other
people say, as Steve Marcus has done more recently. Eric apparently
cannot handle that, and his only recourse is to kill-file people.
As for "a great deal of valuable information", Inger has failed to
make any case *for* the geological evidence supporting the KRS.
Instead they (both) attempt to put the burden of proof on any skeptics.
Another case of Inger and Eric using an uconventinal "scientific method"?
Jonathan Stone
>you better start by reading for example Bird, the natural landscapes of
>Canada, a study in regional earth science. 1972 ISBN 0-471-073709.
>
>It isn't one of the more Scientific Studies that are to be found, but it's
>good enough for your level of knowledge in this discussion. On page 63 you
>first will fig 5-1(schematic drawing) showing thatthe sea levels in the
>Oceans 1000 years ago was aproximative 5 meter's lower than today. But to
>understand what impact that have in the area discussed you also have to take
>a closer look at Fig 4-6(page 61) where the relative crustal movements in
>the Great Lakes drainage basin are shown. You also have to remember that you
>can't start your counting from today's situation but that you need to do a
>carefully study for each place you are discussing including at least
>400-1000 points around any of the Great Lakes from the time each point had
>the Ice Coat withdrawn as well as from the time each point made it over
>water.
*sigh*. Thanks for the reference. Other than that: Gee, isostatic
rebound for dummies. Tell us something we don't know.
If you are to do a careful study of the actual situation you also
>needs to have readings for every point mentioned above for the last 100-150
>years as well as good knowledge of the soil, the hydrological situation and
>many other details. Given all those facts it's possible to use any skill you
>might have in regards of Mathematic curv calculation for times between the
>older dates and the new dates.
>
>The readings you got have to be drawn on maps for you to check a certain
>periods accurate reading after local divergenses between landrise in an area
>and in a certain point in that area before you can come up with assumption
>such as those below if your assumption are to be trustworthy at all!
But _nothing_ in what Inger writes this says anything relevant to any
of the points I made below. If the region had had large-scale lakes
disappear in the last 600 years (or lakes filled and then emptied any
time since, oh, after Lage Agassiz drained), there should be plenty of
gelogic evidence. Where is that evidence?
(Inger's quoted text below reposted posted here for comparison; I
should go back and check the original, given Eric's document penchant
for making umarked snips which signficanctly change the meaning of the
text.)
>Jonathan Stone <jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU> skrev i
>diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:8hsn94$9t2$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
>> In article <2mr2ksk5pm3drh0id...@4ax.com>,
Peter Halls
now is the moment to jump in.
What I'm going to say has little *direct* relevance to the KRS stone per
se, although by filling in some of the surrounding background I may help
in facilitating discussion regarding alternative hypotheses *if the stone
is genuine*.
I'm dissappointed at the lack of petrological evidence posted regarding
this stone so far. I think that it is quite possible that the stone was
part of material used as ballast in a boat ... so identifying its
provenance would be useful.
It has been my great pleasure to be involved in archaeological studies of
Norse Greenland for a considerable number of years.
The Norse interest in Greenland (which they named) and beyond stems from
the expulsion of Eric the Red from Iceland. Eric settled at Brattalid,
opposite the present day Narsarsuaq airport and settlement, which became a
part of the *Eastern* Settlement located at the Southern tip of Greenland.
Despite the number of known Norse dwellings in the Eastern Settlement
being measures in hundreds whilst there are some 30 in the Western
Settlement, the latter is the one that has received the most study and
upon which almost all published hypotheses regarding the Norse in
Greenland are based.
The Eastern Settlement, where Eric settled, is today lush compared to
Iceland, from whence they came. Back in the 1oth - 12th centuries, with
ice core chronology indicating a temperature at least 2 degrees C warmer
than today, it possibly *was* as attractive a location compared to Iceland
as is claimed in the Sagas. The Eastern Settlement comprised at least 500
'farmsteads', plus saeters and lasted from the initial settlement by Eric
the Red into the beginings of the 15thC. The Norse by Eric's time were
essentially Christian: Igaliko, in the Eastern Settlement and perhaps 30km
from Brattalid, was the seat of the Greenland Bishop. There are a number
of churches and chapels recorded in the Eastern Settlement. Examination
to date of human remains has not supported disease or malnutrition as a
cause of the demise of *this* settlement "it is as though the people just
got up and left". Although the climate certainly worsened by the 14th /
15th centuries, evidence so far suggests that here (at the southern tip of
Greenland) it may not have been significantly worse than in relatively
modern times. Although the Norse left, the Inuit did not (although for
the most part the evidence suggests that the Norse and Inuit had very
little contact and that the Inuit did not occupy the abandonned Norse
settlements. Current thinking on the date of abandonment of the Eastern
Settlement suggests the *possibility* that the people may have returned to
Iceland, replacing those killed by the 'balck death'. Bone collections
suggest a pastoral people, exploiting some seal. There is a blacksmith's
hearth near Igaliko, and evidence of charcoal. The surroundings offer
plenty of peat for fuel, lush herb growth but very limited tree growth.
Pollen analysis to date has not suggested a major change in the vegetation
species mix, other than the introduction of modern grasses in the last 50
years. Estimates of the maximum population vary, but may well have been
measured in thousands, rather than hundreds. Tom McGovern's analysis of
the sustainability of Norse Greenland, which is based upon studies of the
Western Settlement (see below) do not seem to be so valid for the Eastern
Settlement.
By contrast, the Western Settlement was small, some 30 - 40 dwellings, no
formal church, and without many of the features of the Eastern Settlement.
Again, population estimates vary but none suggest more than 1000 - 1500,
most a lot fewer. It is amazing that it is *this* settlement which has
received almost all the attention! The Western Settlement is located
about "one journey unit" from the Eastern Settlement and about halfway to
Disko and the summer hunting grounds for walrus, from which the Norse paid
their taxes (to Norway in tusks) and made their ropes from the hide.
Whilst there is evidence of some exploitation of seal, walrus bone does
not form a significant percentage of the bone collections of the Eastern
Settlement.
So far as I know at present, there is no *evidence* that the Norse
exploited the native iron at Disko. The Western Settlement appears to
have been located just to the south of the pack ice limits of the 12th /
13th centuries, but the pack ice appears to have reached, if not passed
further south, by the time of the end of this settlement. One recent
hypothesis is that the settlement was abandonned because the pack ice made
it inaccessible (by sea, the only viable route for the Norse).
The Western Settlement is also located at the narrowing of Davis Sound, to
Baffin Island, and about "one journey unit" from Labrador. There is
evidence that the Greenland Norse knew of Labrador; there is a suggestion
that they may have obtained timber and fuel from Labrador - species
identification for charcoal samples from the Eastern Settlement is
awaited. *IF* the Western Settlement were primarily a 'resting' point on
passage to Disko or Labrador, such might explain the size and nature of
the sites ... *BUT THIS IS CONJECTURE AT PRESENT*. It would appear that
the nature of currents in the Davis Sound and Labrador Sea are such that a
crossing of the Davis Sound might be significantly less risky than a
direct crossing from teh Eastern Settlement to Labrador or Newfoundland.
Vinland is a location mentioned in the Greenland Sagas. Current
speculation seems to favour L'Anse aux Meadows, on Newfoundland. The
evidence is that it was initially discovered accidentally, from a boat
driven off course for the Eastern Settlement. The route description
suggests that the people got to Greenland by travelling up the coast of
Labrador and then across Davis Sound / the northen Labrador Sea, and thus
to the Eastern Settlement. The known Vinalnd remains do not suggest a
large settlement and do also suggest contact with locations further south
- 'butternuts' being cited in this regard. There is evidence of a
bloomery at L'Anse aux Meadows. The saga evidence, however, points more
towards a restricted settlement in Vinland.
Whilst acknowledging L'Anse aux Meadows, some investigators consider this
site too small to be Vinland and have looked elsewhere - especially
further south along the Atlantic coast. I've not seen any evidence of the
Norse navigating the St Lawrence but to the Norse the Gulf of St Lawrence
must have looked familiar ground. It would not be beyond the bounds of
possibility that a group might investigate further - but whether they
might make it as far as this discussion has focussed I'm doubtful. *IF*
they did, I'd expect such an investigation to be earlier rather than later
in the Norse period: Lief Ericsson, Eric the Red's son, is creditted with
reversing the accidental discovery of Vinland and with Thorvald
establishing a small, but short lived, settlement. It *may* be that
although abandonning a *permanent* settlement, Vinland was used as a
source of supplies in summer ... the awaited charcoal analysis results may
give a useful hint here ... and, if this is so, it may be that visits to
the american coast may have covered a much longer period than the evidence
at the moment supports.
I'm doubtful of the KRS stone, so far as I understand the evidence at
present, being related to the late visits to the Norse Greenland
settlements - it would seem unlikely to me that such a party would bother
to travel *that* far on their specific mission. I would not rule out an
investigation earlier on in the Norse Greenland settlement history
exploring this far ... but I think I'd prefer to see some supporting
evidence!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPPPPH H | Peter Halls - University of York Computing Service -
P P H | GIS Advisor
P P H | Email: P.H...@YORK.AC.UK
PPPPPJHHHHHH | Telephone: 01904 433806 FAX: 01904 433740
P J H | Smail: Computing Service,
P J H | University of York,
P J H | Heslington.
J | YORK YO10 5DD
J J | England.
JJJ This message has the status of a private & personal communication
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
INGER E. JOHANSSON
Michael Zalar <m_z...@hotmail.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:39456477...@hotmail.com...
> Robert Ehrlich wrote:
>
> > As a native Minnesotan, why the hell would anyone from Scandinavia hike
> > to Minnesota a millenium ago. the climate in Scandinavia is very mild
> > compared to Minnesota (which has a "siberian" climate) along with bigger
> > mosquitos and black flies. Norwegian farmer jokes aside, these guys wer
> > most likely not fool enough to travel 2000km to loot and pillage the
> > sauger fisheries.
The weather conditions and climate during the period 800 AD - 1300 AD wasn't
the same as it is today. Your North American areas had higher temperature,
it was possible to harvest up to twice a year even in some areas in
Greenland. look for example of the size on the Greenlander's Farms different
buildings...... the other interesting thing is that the Norse in Greenland
wasn't as up to eating fish as we are today, they hunted American caribou,
mumals and they had three different crops grown and many many other details.
Inger E
Inger E
>
> Cathay. The Land of the Great Khan. China, with all her wealth
>
> The fellow were looking for a route to the riches of the East. A
manuscript from
> 1330 by Friar Oderic notes that the Khan had white ger-falcons. I need to
double
> check this, but similar white falcons were found in Greenland. Perhaps
thinks the
> King (or Paul Knuttson), Greenland is closer to Cathay than we think. The
Eskimos
> look rather like the descriptons we have of Mongols (Columbus certainly
thought so,
> having seen a pair of storm wrecked Eskimos years before his famous
voyage). Could
> it be that Greenland is within trading distance of the Khan's court?
>
> The possibilty of wealth is a great motivator - it may certainly have been
a prime
> cause for this expedition.
>
> Michael
>
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>I've been watching this discussion with interest ... and have decided that
>now is the moment to jump in.
>
>What I'm going to say has little *direct* relevance to the KRS stone per
>se, although by filling in some of the surrounding background I may help
>in facilitating discussion regarding alternative hypotheses *if the stone
>is genuine*.
>
>I'm dissappointed at the lack of petrological evidence posted regarding
>this stone so far. I think that it is quite possible that the stone was
>part of material used as ballast in a boat ... so identifying its
>provenance would be useful.
Winchell, state geologist and professor of geology, identified it as
being consistent with one of the local greywackes.
--- snip ----
Peter Halls
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:33:06 +0100, Peter Halls <pj...@york.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >I've been watching this discussion with interest ... and have decided that
> >now is the moment to jump in.
> >
> >What I'm going to say has little *direct* relevance to the KRS stone per
> >se, although by filling in some of the surrounding background I may help
> >in facilitating discussion regarding alternative hypotheses *if the stone
> >is genuine*.
> >
> >I'm dissappointed at the lack of petrological evidence posted regarding
> >this stone so far. I think that it is quite possible that the stone was
> >part of material used as ballast in a boat ... so identifying its
> >provenance would be useful.
Thank you Eric ...
>
> Winchell, state geologist and professor of geology, identified it as
> being consistent with one of the local greywackes.
>
I'm no expert on New World geology. Can anyone comment upon the
relationships of "one of the local greywackes" to the archaean rocks
around the Western Settlement in Greenland or the Caledonides of around
Bergen?
I do not remember greywackes figuring much in either of the likely source
locations for the people we are discussing: from what I remember, the
rocks around Bergen display typical metamorphic provenence of the
Caledonian Orogeny, and those from Greenland are also predominantly
crystaline - none of these would be likely to be confused with a greywacke!
On that basis, unless someone can offer a suitable source of an equivalent
greywacke from Greenland or Norway, the likely source of the material for
this stone is in the locality of its 'finding'.
> --- snip ----
Peter
Michael Zalar
Doug Weller wrote:But you might be able to help with something -- what is the source of
the story
> about storm-wrecked Eskimos? I've heard something similar, although what I read
> (from an early 19th century book with no source listed) said they were dead and
> that they didn't resemble any known race.
>
>
I will try and get that for you when I have the time - I've been going through KRS
threads for about 2.5 hrs now and am a bit exhausted. I think it was from a paper posted
on the Internet, in which case its hiding somewhere in my mail (I cut and paste relevant
articles or sections and mail them to myself).
Michael
INGER E. JOHANSSON
four things, churches even if not formal are mentioned by other
Archaeologists to have been at least 40 in western settlements, I have sent
referensis earlier to different articles in "Grönländske middelser". Those
churches as well as the monestry are mentioned by both Prime sources and
archaeologist didn't acknowledge the Pope as their head re. religious
matter. (I can send you more information directly if you want me to).
secondly, you're writings regarding hunting doesn't correspond neither to
Jansen's investigation nor to other studies I have seen either in
"middelser" or elsewhere so I would like you to send me more information re.
your studies.
there are more things than I have mentioned that supports settlement close
to southern parts of Hudson Bay. Among them the signs like mounds not
natural caused, I read the other day a naturalgeographic survey of an area
north of the border(in Canada) and the geologist wrote that there were
mounds they couldn't explain....... if a geologist can't explain a mound(let
alone several) as natural, than they are unlikely to be so. If the mounds,
which was the case, are found close to old"Indian" longhouses in a forrest,
and the same Indian did build small round houses before 800 AD, than I for
one would like to have places like that excavated, wouldn't you???
Fourth, King Magnus Eriksson was pressed by his relative St.Birgitta to
fullfil the promise he had made when borrowing money from the Roman Catholic
Chuch for his crusades to the outer most distant places of the land for
which he was the head of Church. That we know for a fact. We also know that
as early as during the 11th Century Adam of Bremen placed Vinland beyond
Markland and beyond Greenland. That's a fact. The discribtion in Adam of
Bremen re. those areas are not only older than the Icelandic Sagas but Adam
of Bremen holds higher Historical value than Snorre and other Icelanders
later on. Of course Adam could and was wrong in some cases, but never the
less the information given by Adam are stronger than the Sagas. Not to
mention the fact that Adam refers that Danish king Svein Estridsson, whom
Adam got much of his information from told Adam about a man who owned lot's
of land in Vinland. Than I haven't mentioned the most interesting part,
there actually exist prime sources indicating that at least one Danish king
as a prince had gone to Greenland and on to Vinland......
The ref. for the later I save to an other occasion, for the moment I think
Adam of Bremen to hold a stronger case. If Adam of Bremen was correct, than
Newfoundland isn't Vinland. That doesn't mean that I say that the Vikings
couldn't have had several settlements in North America, only that the found
settlement in L'Aux Medow is to small to support the theory of being Vinland
and that the coast south of Newfounland could have had many Norse visits,
which we have no knowledge about today.
Inger E
Peter Halls <pj...@york.ac.uk> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:Pine.SGI.3.95L.1000613075745.832203d-100000@pet
ers.york.ac.uk...
INGER E. JOHANSSON
> In article <Knp05.12266$Za1.1...@newsc.telia.net>,
> INGER E. JOHANSSON <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
> But _nothing_ in what Inger writes this says anything relevant to any
> of the points I made below. If the region had had large-scale lakes
> disappear in the last 600 years (or lakes filled and then emptied any
> time since, oh, after Lage Agassiz drained), there should be plenty of
> gelogic evidence. Where is that evidence?
Jonathan,
had you opened the book I send referens to than you would have found parts
of your missing evidence!!!
Inger E
INGER E. JOHANSSON
if you don't look into referensis given, than you are the one that use
unconventional methods. The chances for anyone, you or an other to
understand a method used are slim if you don't look for information in the
normal way!!
Inger E
Jonathan Stone <jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:8i4hfc$45i$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <ohl5ksgsfgfvslq1j...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
Robert Ehrlich
hardwood forest,is full of bouldery till and outwash, and as good or
better areas lie to the east and south. These people were not fools and
why would anyone want to go far for no apparent reason unless, of
course, the answer is lutefisk poisoning (the only antidote being
Minnesota black fly brandy).
"INGER E. JOHANSSON" wrote:
>
> Michael Zalar <m_z...@hotmail.com> skrev i
> diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:39456477...@hotmail.com...
> > Robert Ehrlich wrote:
> >
> > > As a native Minnesotan, why the hell would anyone from Scandinavia hike
> > > to Minnesota a millenium ago. the climate in Scandinavia is very mild
> > > compared to Minnesota (which has a "siberian" climate) along with bigger
> > > mosquitos and black flies. Norwegian farmer jokes aside, these guys wer
> > > most likely not fool enough to travel 2000km to loot and pillage the
> > > sauger fisheries.
>
Doug Weller
inger_e....@telia.com says...
> only that the found
> settlement in L'Aux Medow is to small to support the theory of being Vinland
>
INGER E. JOHANSSON
I never have seen about storm-wrecked Eskimos, but I do know that there is a
photo of an old handscript in a book talking about storm-wrecked
Norsedescendants ending up close to Trondheim. Last time I was at
Gothenburg's Library the book wasn't in the sleeves so I guess that someone
have borrowed the book. Unfortunatly I don't remember the title for the
moment.
Inger E
Michael Zalar <m_z...@hotmail.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:39465E51...@hotmail.com...
Bruce D. Winningham
Thanks,
Bruce Winningham
Keith Littleton
> On 21 May I posted an article which commenced as follows:
> For the last several years an argument has been raging on and off
> insci.archaeology about the authenticity of the so-called
> Kensington Rune Stone which was found in 1898 in the roots of a
> tree near the town of Kensington, Minnesota. This is a greywacke
> stone incised with scandinavian runes telling the story of the fate
> of an expedition which found itself in the area in the year 1362.
... text deleted ....
> Scandinavians are very unlikely to have got where they apparently
> did by boat in current times but what has not been satisfactorily
> answered is the extent to which the lakes, rivers and general
> catchment may have changed over the intervening 640 years. ...
> At that point I enquired about isostatic rebound. More recently I have
> read that an explanation is that in the 14th century the Red River
> Valley was a glacial lake extending northward from the continental
> divide at Brown's Valley, Minnesota, to Lake Winnipeg.
> What I would like to know is, is this statement correct, what evidence
> is there for this suggestion and what would have been the effect on
> the navigability by water in the Kensington area for someone
> approaching from the North (possibly ex the Nelson River)? I would be
> most grateful for any light that can be thrown on these questions.
This glacial lake had absolutely no effect on the Kensington
area. Lake Agassiz drained circa 9,000 B.P. which predates
the 14th century and the Vikings by a considerable period of
time. Also, at the time that Lake Agassiz existed, its northern
shore was the edge of the Laurentide Ice Cap which then covered
Hudson Bay. Thus, to get to Lake Agassiz any "Paleo-Indians"
would have needed to sail through the Gulf of St. Lawerence
through lake Erie, Ontario, Michigan and Superior and finally the
"eastern outlet" of Lake Agassiz or up the Missouri-Mississippi
which were meltwater rivers. The maximum level of Lake Agassiz
was about 200 ft below the elevation of the base of the
swamp-filled kettle hole that surrounds the island in the
middle of it. The maximum extent of Lake Agassiz occurred
about 10,400 B.P.
Some good references:
Harris, K. L., Luther, M. R., and Reid, J. R. (1996)
Quateranry Geology of the Southern Lake Agassiz Basin:
Guidebook and short papers for Midwest Friends of the
Pleistocene 43rd annual Meeting May 31-June 2, 1996 &
Post-Meeting Fieldtrip June 2-3, 1996. North Dakota
Geological Survey Miscellaneous Series no. 82.
Teller, T. T., and Clayton, L., eds. (1983) Lake Agassiz.
Geological Association of Canada Special Paper no. 26.
Teller, T. T. (1987) Proglacial lakes and the southern
margin of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. In W. F. Ruddimen,
and H. E. Wright, Jr., eds., pp. 39-70, North America
and Adjacent Oceans During the Last Deglaciation. The
Geology of North america, vol. K-3, Geological Society
of America, Boulder, Colorado.
Also, the isostatic rebound would have had an insignificant
effect on the drainages of the Kensington area. At best,
the only effects that could be observed without carefully
done topographic surveys about 8,000 years apart would be
the differences in degree of entrenchment of the Red River.
These are relatively small differences that would be
observable only short distances up its tributaries. The
effect of isotatic rebound on the Nelson River would
have at been very minor at best.
This is all documented in:
Brevik, E. C. (1994) Isostatic Rebound in the Lake Agassiz
Basin since the Late Wisconsinan: Unpublished Master;s thesis,
Deaprtment of Geology and Geological Engineering, University
of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND.
Yours,
Keith Littleton
litt...@vnet.net
New Orleans,LA
Keith Littleton
> I've been watching this discussion with interest ... and have decided that
> now is the moment to jump in.
> What I'm going to say has little *direct* relevance to the KRS stone per
> se, although by filling in some of the surrounding background I may help
> in facilitating discussion regarding alternative hypotheses *if the stone
> is genuine*.
> I'm dissappointed at the lack of petrological evidence posted regarding
> this stone so far. I think that it is quite possible that the stone was
> part of material used as ballast in a boat ... so identifying its
> provenance would be useful.
The kensington area is part of a large glacial moraine. It is not
all unusual to find large rocks, called erratics, in the glacial
till or sitting on the surface. There is a large area of Canada
"upglacier" of where the Kensington Rune Stone was found that
contains an infinite variety of rocks. I would be very surprised
if the petrography would indicate anything ithan t being a run-
of-the-mill glacial erratic that could have very well been found by
whoever carved the runes on the hill on which it now lies.
Eric Stevens
<litt...@katie.vnet.net> wrote:
>This glacial lake had absolutely no effect on the Kensington
>area. Lake Agassiz drained circa 9,000 B.P. which predates
>the 14th century and the Vikings by a considerable period of
>time.
---- snip ----
>
>This is all documented in:
>
>Brevik, E. C. (1994) Isostatic Rebound in the Lake Agassiz
>Basin since the Late Wisconsinan: Unpublished Master;s thesis,
>Deaprtment of Geology and Geological Engineering, University
>of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND.
Many thanks. I knew about Lake Aggaziz and only asked in case there
was some truth to the suggestion that there was a (presumably much
smaller) lake in the valley of the Red River of the North in the 14th
century.
New references are always welcome.
Graham Parkinson
with a dead
Eskimo in it that was given a burial by the local villagers. I gave the
book away - it was a history
of the Stornaway fishing villages and the peoples on the Hebrides.
My impression is that it was an incident in the 1800's although similar
incidents may have happened
earlier.
Graham Parkinson
"INGER E. JOHANSSON" <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in message
news:gyz15.13244$Za1.2...@newsc.telia.net...
Harald Henkel
I guess it's the abbreviation vor "svar" or "svara" the swedish word
for reply (Re) / answer.
Solutions sometimes are thus simple ;-)))
Harald Henkel
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jonathan Stone
INGER E. JOHANSSON <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
>Jonathan,
>if you don't look into referensis given, than you are the one that use
>unconventional methods. The chances for anyone, you or an other to
>understand a method used are slim if you don't look for information in the
>normal way!!
I dont understand. What reference does this have to Eric's reply?
And while you're at it, when are you going to post the references
to substantiate the claims for which I've repeatedly asked?
Jonathan Stone
>> In article <Knp05.12266$Za1.1...@newsc.telia.net>,
>> But _nothing_ in what Inger writes this says anything relevant to any
>> of the points I made below. If the region had had large-scale lakes
>> disappear in the last 600 years (or lakes filled and then emptied any
>> time since, oh, after Lage Agassiz drained), there should be plenty of
>> gelogic evidence. Where is that evidence?
>
>Jonathan,
>had you opened the book I send referens to than you would have found parts
>of your missing evidence!!!
and _that_ response looks indistinguishable from pure squink.
Since you *have* read the reference you cited, can you please explain
how it addresses the points raised by Keith Littleton (posted along
with several references?) I mean, it is you who is making an argument
here -- isn't it?
INGER E. JOHANSSON
Bruce D. Winningham <10274...@compuserve.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:he1ekskmlrufv1qf1...@4ax.com...
> Could someone please tell me what the SV means in the above subject?
>
> Thanks,
> Bruce Winningham
SV means that the mail is an answer to a former mail. In above SV: SV: SV:
SV: it means answer to answer to answer to answer of the first mail
"Minnesota Lakes......"
Hope you are satisfied with this answer.
Inger E
Keith Littleton
Message-ID: <lu4eksor995pjroek...@4ax.com>
Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 03:54:20 GMT,
>Keith Littleton <litt...@katie.vnet.net> wrote:
... text about Lake Agassiz deleted ...
>Many thanks. I knew about Lake Aggaziz and only
>asked in case there was some truth to the suggestion
>that there was a (presumably much smaller) lake in
>the valley of the Red River of the North in the 14th
>century.
There exists sufficient evidence to refute this
hypothesis as other posters have proposed.
1. The valley of the Red River contains numerous
archaeological sites ranging in age from late Paleo-
Indian to historic. Had there been any sort of 14th
century lake within the Red River Valley in the 14th
century, these sites would have been either buried
by lake deposits or destroyed by the rise and fall
of this hypothetical lake. Instead, the surface
sites lie on Pleistocene lake deposits of Lake
Agassiz.
2. Sediments accumulate in lakes. The Red River
transport sufficient amounts of sediments that had
a 14th century lake existed, it should had left
behind some sort recognizable lake deposits on its
bottom and at the mouth of rivers and streams feeding
it. The valley of Red River has been mapped in great
detail, for example Harris (1987), and neither
Holocene deltas nor lake deposits have been found
in the Red River Valley. All that have been found
are the deposits of Lake Agassiz which are defined
by deeply weathered soils which take thousands of
years to develop. Such soils would not be associated
with younger Holocene age deposits only a few hundred
years old.
Also, fluvial deposits and terraces, thousands of years
old, have been mapped along the Red River by (Nielsen et
al. (1993). These fluvial sediments have been neither
buried nor modified by lake processes. The undisturbed
fluvial deposits show that no lakes have existed in the
Red River Valley since their deposition over the last
few thousand years.
Finally, rivers like the Red Lake River provide a cross
section of the deposits lying beneath the Red River
Valley (Harris et al. 1996 p. 13). So far no Holocene
lake deposits have been recognized in such exposures.
3. Lakes modified their shoreline. If a 14th century
lake had existed, there should be some evidence of its
shoreline. There should Holocene age beaches, bars, and
erosional lags created by the action of waves and currents
that exist in any lake. Although deeply weathered, but
still well preserved beaches, deltas, bars, and erosional
lags of Lake Agassiz have been recognized and mapped, no
Holocene age shoreline feature that can be related to a
Holocene lake level has been found by detail mapping of
the Red River Valley and lake plain of Lake Agassiz.
If such features existed, they would by observed in
mapping like that done by Harris (1987).
4. the Holocene history of Lake Winnipeg since the
draining of Lake Agassiz is reasonably well established.
At no time was it larger than it is now. If fact,
because of isostatic rebound uplifting its outlet
relative to its basin, it has grown with time. It
was smaller in the past than it is now and never
bigger than it is now (Nielsen et al. 1996).
5. Rannie et al. (1989) has reconstructed the history
of the Assiniboine River and Lake Manitoba for the last
7,000 years. Well defined channels of the Assiniboine
River can be found to have been active throughout
this period, including the Curtis Ridge Phase which
dates to the 13th and 14th centuries. This precludes
any 14th century lakes in a lower part, thus most,
of the Lake Agassiz Lake basin.
The problem here is that there is a total absence of
Holocene age lake deposits or shoreline features in
the Red River Valley. If a person is going to
hypothesis such a lake, they need to show that such
lake deposits exist and explain why archaeological
sites, fluvial deposits, fluvial channels and terraces,
and well-developed soil profiles were not either
buried, disturbed, or destroyed by a Holocene lake.
References Cited:
Harris, K. L. (1987) The Quaternary Geology of the Grand
Forks-Red Lake Falls Area, North Dakota and Minnesota.
North Dakota Geological Survey Open File Report OF-87-1.
1:270,000. North Dakota Geological Survey, Fargo.
Nielsen, E., W. B. Mckillop, and G. G. Conley (1993)
Fluvial sedimentology and paleoecology of Holocene
alluvial deposits, Red River Manitoba. Geographie
Physique et Quatairie. v. 47, pp. 193-210.
Nielsen, E. K. D. McLeod, E. Pip, and J. C. Doering
(1996) Late Holocene Environmental Changes in Southern
Manitoba. Winnipeg '96 Field Trip Guidebook no. A2.
Geological Association of Canada, Winnipeg Section,
Manitoba, Canada. 31 pp.
Rannie, W. F., L. H. Thorleifson, J. T. Teller (1989)
Holocene evolution of the Assiniboine River paleochannels
and Portage la Prairie alluvial fan. Canadian Journal
of Earth Sciences. v. 26, pp. 1834-1841.
>New references are always welcome.
Teller, J. T. (1994) Lake Agassiz; Manitoba, Ontario,
Saskatchewan, North Dakota, and Minnesota (Canada and
USA). In K. E. Gierlowski and K. Kelts, eds., pp. 363-
370. Global geological record of lake basins; Volume 1.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Teller, J. T., L. H. Thorleifson, G. Matile, and
W. C. Brisbin (1996) Sedimentology and History of
the Central Lake Agassiz Basin (Filed trip B2).
Winnipeg '96 Field Trip Guidebook no. B2. Geological
Association of Canada, Winnipeg Section, Manitoba,
Canada. 101 pp.
Keith Littleton
> Jonathan Stone <jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU> skrev i
> diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:8i4h87$449$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
>> In article <Knp05.12266$Za1.1...@newsc.telia.net>,
>> INGER E. JOHANSSON <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> But _nothing_ in what Inger writes this says anything relevant to any
>> of the points I made below. If the region had had large-scale lakes
>> disappear in the last 600 years (or lakes filled and then emptied any
>> time since, oh, after Lage Agassiz drained), there should be plenty of
>> gelogic evidence. Where is that evidence?
> Jonathan,
> had you opened the book I send referens to than you would have found parts
> of your missing evidence!!!
None of those citation has anything really useful.
Try these instead:
Harris, K. L., Luther, M. R., and Reid, J. R. (1996)
Quateranry Geology of the Southern Lake Agassiz Basin:
Guidebook and short papers for Midwest Friends of the
Pleistocene 43rd annual Meeting May 31-June 2, 1996 &
Post-Meeting Fieldtrip June 2-3, 1996. North Dakota
Geological Survey Miscellaneous Series no. 82.
Nielsen, E., W. B. Mckillop, and G. G. Conley (1993)
Fluvial sedimentology and paleoecology of Holocene
alluvial deposits, Red River Manitoba. Geographie
Physique et Quatairie. v. 47, pp. 193-210.
Nielsen, E. K. D. McLeod, E. Pip, and J. C. Doering
(1996) Late Holocene Environmental Changes in Southern
Manitoba. Winnipeg '96 Field Trip Guidebook no. A2.
Geological Association of Canada, Winnipeg Section,
Manitoba, Canada. 31 pp.
Rannie, W. F., L. H. Thorleifson, J. T. Teller (1989)
Holocene evolution of the Assiniboine River paleochannels
and Portage la Prairie alluvial fan. Canadian Journal
of Earth Sciences. v. 26, pp. 1834-1841.
Teller, T. T. (1987) Proglacial lakes and the southern
margin of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. In W. F. Ruddimen,
and H. E. Wright, Jr., eds., pp. 39-70, North America
and Adjacent Oceans During the Last Deglaciation. The
Geology of North america, vol. K-3, Geological Society
Teller, J. T. (1994) Lake Agassiz; Manitoba, Ontario,
Saskatchewan, North Dakota, and Minnesota (Canada and
USA). In K. E. Gierlowski and K. Kelts, eds., pp. 363-
370. Global geological record of lake basins; Volume 1.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Teller, T. T., and Clayton, L., eds. (1983) Lake Agassiz.
Geological Association of Canada Special Paper no. 26.
of America, Boulder, Colorado.
Jonathan Stone
>diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:he1ekskmlrufv1qf1...@4ax.com...
>> Could someone please tell me what the SV means in the above subject?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bruce Winningham
>
>SV means that the mail is an answer to a former mail. In above SV: SV: SV:
>SV: it means answer to answer to answer to answer of the first mail
>"Minnesota Lakes......"
How nice to see Inger's demonstration of contemporary computer usage
(especially since she criticises others' usage).
Normal people use "Re:" (whether Scandinavian or not). Using "SV:"
fragments threads. One is forced to conclude that Inger's earlier
claims to knowledge about how computers work was incorrect; or that
Inger knows better, but is choosing to fragment threads regardless.
You choose.
Michael Zalar
Michael Zalar wrote:
>
>
> > about storm-wrecked Eskimos? I've heard something similar, although what I read
> > (from an early 19th century book with no source listed) said they were dead and
> > that they didn't resemble any known race.
> >
> >
>
> I will try and get that for you when I have the time - I've been going through KRS
> threads for about 2.5 hrs now and am a bit exhausted. I think it was from a paper posted
> on the Internet, in which case its hiding somewhere in my mail (I cut and paste relevant
> articles or sections and mail them to myself).
>
>
Okay, to correct myself, it has been presented that Columbus saw some Eskimos who he might
reasonably thought were Mongols or Orientals:
"Paper presented by Rebecca Catz, in Washing-
ton, D.C., on September 25, 1990. Conference
title: "Spain and Portugal of the Navigators:
the Iberian Peninsula Countries, Europe and New Horizons."
"Confirmation of the fact that he did indeed go to
Iceland is given by Columbus himself in a note in his own hand-
writing, inscribed in his copy of Pope Pius II's book--"History
of Memorable Things that Happened in My Time"--written in Latin,
and which translates as follows: "Men have come hither from
Cathay in the Orient. Many remarkable things have we seen,
particularly at Galway, in Ireland, a man and a woman of most
unusual appearance adrift in two boats." The identity of the
bodies has been convincingly suggested by David Quinn as Inuit,
an Eskimo people, who, with their Mongol-type features, probably
resembled Orientals. Columbus is indeed very likely to have
visited Galway, if, as he says, he had been on a voyage to
Iceland. It is the natural intermediate port of call between
Iceland and Bristol. "
Given the location, it seems likely that it was Eskimos that Columbus thought were men from
Cathay. It does not seem totally foolish to believe that some 14th century Norse may have
made the same error, and believed that the riches of the Orient were just over the next
horizon.
Michael
Gerhard Kuhn
>As far as what a bunch or Norsemen may have been doing in NW Minnesota in
>rthe mid 14th C., we have some real problems. There is no known reason for
>them to have been anywhere near that location. There have been some
>fumbling attempts to link them up with a *supposed* expedition to Greenland
>(*Greenland*, for god's sake! Probably about 1500 miles away!). The more we
>follow this direction, the more we must pile one supposition upon another,
>until, in the end, we certainly do have an intriguing adventure story, but,
>as wiser folk than I have said, "that's not the way to bet."
>
>For the textual analysis of the runestone, we have a fairly confused and
>vague story that in part contradicts attempts to support its origin as a
>supposed known expedition.
>
One thing that has been ignored in all the discussions is that the many
American Indian Peoples had extensive local and regional trading networks. The
item of discussion could have easily been transported through these trading
networks to the location where found in a relatively short time, from a
considerable distance away. Without conclusive evidence, all possible
scenarios need to be considered.
Sawfish
This seems to me to be an excellent point. Here's what it allows:
1) stone legitmately carved, in 1362, but nearer to the
long-identified-but-as-yet-unplaced Vinland. Let's say, for the sake of
this discussion, nearer to Nova Scotia or Labrador, or even the southern
part of Hudson Bay.
2) the stone becomes a possesion of power and is traded.
According to the description of the tree under which the stone was found,
that would mena that the stone could likely have come to rest on the spot
where found as late as ~1850. That leaves 490 years for the stone to make
its way to the spot where found.
3) stone legtitmately found by Ohman.
Am I the only one, or does this sound AT LEAST as parsimonious as having
the norse trek their way to Kensington for no clear reason in 1362?
The greywacke composition is the main barrier, I think, but it is a
physical property that can be checked, and is less subject to opinion than
otherwise.
Good point, Gerhard!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish: He talks the talk...but does he walk the walk?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eric Stevens
>gk...@kestrel.cr.usgs.gov (Gerhard Kuhn) writes:
>
--- snip ----
>
>>One thing that has been ignored in all the discussions is that the many
>>American Indian Peoples had extensive local and regional trading networks. The
>>item of discussion could have easily been transported through these trading
>>networks to the location where found in a relatively short time, from a
>>considerable distance away. Without conclusive evidence, all possible
>>scenarios need to be considered.
>
>This seems to me to be an excellent point. Here's what it allows:
>
>1) stone legitmately carved, in 1362, but nearer to the
>long-identified-but-as-yet-unplaced Vinland. Let's say, for the sake of
>this discussion, nearer to Nova Scotia or Labrador, or even the southern
>part of Hudson Bay.
>
>2) the stone becomes a possesion of power and is traded.
>
>According to the description of the tree under which the stone was found,
>that would mena that the stone could likely have come to rest on the spot
>where found as late as ~1850. That leaves 490 years for the stone to make
>its way to the spot where found.
>
>3) stone legtitmately found by Ohman.
>
>Am I the only one, or does this sound AT LEAST as parsimonious as having
>the norse trek their way to Kensington for no clear reason in 1362?
>
>The greywacke composition is the main barrier, I think, but it is a
>physical property that can be checked, and is less subject to opinion than
>otherwise.
>
>Good point, Gerhard!
Not entirely. There is one thing that more or less rules that out (and
brings it back within the ambit of sci.geo.geology) is that Winchell
(Prof of that name and state geologist) concluded that the stone had
been protected from weathering for much of its life. I thought that
Michael Zalar recently reported on this but I can't find a recent post
of his which mentions this. Presumably it was someone quoting one of
his older posts. I will try and find it.
In any case, the stone shows nother sign of frequent handling nor much
weathering. The best explanation for this is that it has spent most of
its life face down in the ground where it was found.
Sawfish
I agree that this is an important point. However, once the stone entered
the trading network (if it did), there's no real telling if it was stored
in some sheltered location, or otherwise.
Perhaps the strongest point against the trading network hypothesis is lack
of "handling damage", which would have been almost certain if the stone
were moved about for 400+ years. Then, again, it could have been moved
there relatively early in its existence, and been somewhat protected from
the elements.
However, I really don't know that Winchell, the emminent geologist (and I
mean this with sincere respect) really examined the stone with an eye
toward this type of transit damage. At any rate, the stone is still
available for examination, and any such physical damage, or lack of it,
should be fairly readily apparent.
That's what I really like about the stone: if we're ever to have a
definitive answer, in all likelihood, it will come from the physical
attributes of the stone, itself.
One additional area of reflection: do you suppose that if the Norse were
killed off by their assailants, or driven off, that the assailants would
have removed, or attempted to deface the stone? I can see that they might
attempt to push it face down, maybe, but that would assume that the final
conflict was at the site of the stone. Perhaps as likely, the final
conflict (if there was one) happened quite distance away--maybe a couple
of days/weeks later-- and the stone, as left by the norse, would be found
much later, and NOT been the obejct of anger or destruction. It might then
be a cuio, or an obejct of power...
Oh, well...
Hyper10n
If something were considered an item of power, it would not necessarily be handled
often. It seems almost likely that such an item would be protected from the elements
as much as possible. Better than sitting on a hillside I'd bet.
--
Donate free food at
http://www.thehungersite.com/
Then save a patch of rain forest - for free - at
http://www.therainforestsite.com/
If you are an educator check out
http://www.staffroomcentral.com
Hyper10n
> On 14 Jun 2000 17:10:16 +1200,
> Message-ID: <lu4eksor995pjroek...@4ax.com>
> Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
> >On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 03:54:20 GMT,
> >Keith Littleton <litt...@katie.vnet.net> wrote:
>
> ... text about Lake Agassiz deleted ...
>
> >Many thanks. I knew about Lake Aggaziz and only
> >asked in case there was some truth to the suggestion
> >that there was a (presumably much smaller) lake in
> >the valley of the Red River of the North in the 14th
> >century.
>
> There exists sufficient evidence to refute this
> hypothesis as other posters have proposed.
>
<excellent post and references (that's refeshing) snipped>
What if the Red River was just flooding at the time?
I admit I don't know the area. I can't even find Kensington on a
useful map on the web (I'll try looking at real maps tomorrow).
I do have a better idea now of where the movie _Fargo_ was set.
Don Quixote
Hyper10n <hype...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3949A565...@hotmail.com...
> I do have a better idea now of where the movie _Fargo_ was set.
Then you also have a better idea why the Vikings left the stone behind and
high-tailed it for home, ya... eh. :-)
--
DQ
INGER E. JOHANSSON
Sawfish <m...@q7.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:9611042...@q7.q7.com...>
gk...@kestrel.cr.usgs.gov (Gerhard Kuhn) writes:
>
<snip>
<snip>
> >>
>
> >One thing that has been ignored in all the discussions is that the many
> >American Indian Peoples had extensive local and regional trading
networks. The
> >item of discussion could have easily been transported through these
trading
> >networks to the location where found in a relatively short time, from a
> >considerable distance away. Without conclusive evidence, all possible
> >scenarios need to be considered.
>
> This seems to me to be an excellent point. Here's what it allows:
>
> 1) stone legitmately carved, in 1362, but nearer to the
> long-identified-but-as-yet-unplaced Vinland. Let's say, for the sake of
> this discussion, nearer to Nova Scotia or Labrador, or even the southern
> part of Hudson Bay.
>
> 2) the stone becomes a possesion of power and is traded.
>
> According to the description of the tree under which the stone was found,
> that would mena that the stone could likely have come to rest on the spot
> where found as late as ~1850. That leaves 490 years for the stone to make
> its way to the spot where found.
>
> 3) stone legtitmately found by Ohman.
>
> Am I the only one, or does this sound AT LEAST as parsimonious as having
> the norse trek their way to Kensington for no clear reason in 1362?
see below, there certainly was more than one reason for such a voyage.
>
> The greywacke composition is the main barrier, I think, but it is a
> physical property that can be checked, and is less subject to opinion than
> otherwise.
As Michael have pointed out that isn't a problem.
Sawfish,
there are two major problems with your possible "solutions" to KRS-problem:
1) King Magnus Eriksson and his son Håkon(king of Norway) had all reasons in
the world to send priests and others on the third(!) Royal Mission and this
time as he had been asked to do to the outer must distant places under his
juridistiction.
I understand that it's hard to comprehend for a person from US or other
places outside Scandinavia the situation that was at hand in the double
kingdom Sweden and Norway during the 1350th when the voyage started. As I
told once before, I think it was in Spring 1997, to present all information
regarding the circumstances behind and reasons for the Royal Commissions I
would need to send around 330 full pages (A4).
But start with this, Sweden's King Magnus Eriksson had under his
juridisticion a total land-area larger than the Roman Empire(African part
excluded). His family on both his fathers and his mothers side had had close
contact, closer than almost all other Royal Families of Europe, with the
Papal Roman Catholic Church for over 250 years(during the 1350th). His close
relative St Birgitta of Vadstena thought it proper to tell the Pope what to
do and not to do, for example to move back to Rome and other things. King
Magnus relative Bo Johnson Griph was the wealthiest man during the Medieval
Age, he owned Finland and the land in several of Sweden's districts(Län).
King Magnus was close related to every Royal Family there was during his
lifetime, and his ancestor had so been since the late 10th Century. The fact
that there was "big" farmers in Vinland must have been known to King Magnus,
due to the fact that the same fact was known from Adam of Bremens book from
the 11th Century where such information was given. There were one other
religious reason. During the 1340-50th the Western settlement's Greenlanders
didn't want to pay indulgence to the Roman Catholic Church, thus the reason
for the trip to Greenland and Vinland not only can be explained but also was
important for the King who had managed to become banned by the Pope due to
the fact that he hadn't succeded as planned in his crusade to the Baltic
area and Russia. The later was due to the fact that his grandfather Birger
Jarl had declined Sweden's taxation sovereignty over Russin land in a
Treaty.(To go into that part alone which is essential for the understanding
why King Magnus took the Papal request for crusades to his kingdoms outer
most distant land seriously would take over 50 pages).
2) The stone can't have been moved long after it had been carved, and one
thing is for sure neither the found settlement in Newfoundland or other
suggested areas fits the fact that the stone fell into the ground, the only
ground where the carving could have been preserved in an almost fresh-way.
The geological situation that made blocks being transported over long
distance by the Ice Coat doesn't fit with that type of stone being
transported to Newfoundland due to Ice Coat movements directions and places
where the same type of stone was more common than in Kensington area.
All in all, that scenario isn't plausible. If you look for what's written in
re. Vinland in Adam of Bremen(1050th) and the Icelandic Sagas( 12th -13th
Century) you will find that wine-berry is mentioned in the later(wine-berry
are usually read as referring to grapes, but there is a Swedish word for
"vinbär" referring to the English word currants. The description given for
Vinland in Adam and the Sagas doesn't correspond with Newfoundland, but it
correspond with the land south and southwest of Hudson Bay. Newfoundland can
't be believed to have had grapes nor currants in older ages, but Minnesota
might have had.
Inger E
Eric Stevens
<inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
--- snip ----
>All in all, that scenario isn't plausible. If you look for what's written in
>re. Vinland in Adam of Bremen(1050th) and the Icelandic Sagas( 12th -13th
>Century) you will find that wine-berry is mentioned in the later(wine-berry
>are usually read as referring to grapes, but there is a Swedish word for
>"vinbär" referring to the English word currants.
According to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01132c.htm the English
translation of what Adam of Bremen wrote in this respect is:
"Furthermore he [King Svend] mentioned still another island found by
many in that ocean. This island is called Winland, because
grapevines grow there wild, yielding the finest wine. And that
crops grow there in plenty without having been sown, I know, not
from fabulous report, but through the definite information of the
Danes".
Currant wine? I suppose that is always possible.
Sawfish
>Sawfish <m...@q7.com> skrev i
<SNIP>
>>
>> Am I the only one, or does this sound AT LEAST as parsimonious as having
>> the norse trek their way to Kensington for no clear reason in 1362?
>see below, there certainly was more than one reason for such a voyage.
>>
>> The greywacke composition is the main barrier, I think, but it is a
>> physical property that can be checked, and is less subject to opinion than
>> otherwise.
>As Michael have pointed out that isn't a problem.
>Sawfish,
>there are two major problems with your possible "solutions" to KRS-problem:
>1) King Magnus Eriksson and his son H[a]kon(king of Norway) had all
reasons in
>the world to send priests and others on the third(!) Royal Mission and this
>time as he had been asked to do to the outer must distant places under his
>juridistiction.
I read this as stating that there are 3 Royal Missions to the general
vicinity. I may have missed earlier posts, but this is the first I've
heard of this.
What can you tell us about the a) dates for each mission; and b) the
stated reason for each; and c) the outcome of each (as far as is known)?
>I understand that it's hard to comprehend for a person from US or other
>places outside Scandinavia the situation that was at hand in the double
>kingdom Sweden and Norway during the 1350th when the voyage started. As I
>told once before, I think it was in Spring 1997, to present all information
>regarding the circumstances behind and reasons for the Royal Commissions I
>would need to send around 330 full pages (A4).
>But start with this, Sweden's King Magnus Eriksson had under his
>juridisticion a total land-area larger than the Roman Empire(African part
>excluded). His family on both his fathers and his mothers side had had close
>contact, closer than almost all other Royal Families of Europe, with the
>Papal Roman Catholic Church for over 250 years(during the 1350th). His close
>relative St Birgitta of Vadstena thought it proper to tell the Pope what to
>do and not to do, for example to move back to Rome and other things. King
>Magnus relative Bo Johnson Griph was the wealthiest man during the Medieval
>Age, he owned Finland and the land in several of Sweden's
districts(L[umlaut a]n).
>King Magnus was close related to every Royal Family there was during his
>lifetime, and his ancestor had so been since the late 10th Century. The fact
>that there was "big" farmers in Vinland must have been known to King Magnus,
>due to the fact that the same fact was known from Adam of Bremens book from
>the 11th Century where such information was given. There were one other
>religious reason. During the 1340-50th the Western settlement's Greenlanders
>didn't want to pay indulgence to the Roman Catholic Church, thus the reason
>for the trip to Greenland and Vinland not only can be explained but also was
>important for the King who had managed to become banned by the Pope due to
>the fact that he hadn't succeded as planned in his crusade to the Baltic
>area and Russia. The later was due to the fact that his grandfather Birger
>Jarl had declined Sweden's taxation sovereignty over Russin land in a
>Treaty.(To go into that part alone which is essential for the understanding
>why King Magnus took the Papal request for crusades to his kingdoms outer
>most distant land seriously would take over 50 pages).
>2) The stone can't have been moved long after it had been carved,
...I'm not sure I can see why this is necessarily so.
>and one
>thing is for sure neither the found settlement in Newfoundland or other
>suggested areas fits the fact that the stone fell into the ground, the only
>ground where the carving could have been preserved in an almost fresh-way.
Not too sure what you mean by this statement. You seem to say that iit is
necessarily certain that if the stone were from Newfoundland (and I'll
concede now that I think it unlikely that it is), or any other
intermediate place, ofr that matter, it cannot hav been face-down for
most/much of that time. Is this what you mean? If so, why not?
Also, it is conceivable that there may well be ways other than face-down
interment that could equally preserve the inscription. Storage in a cave,
for example. I would not be too quick to eliminate alternatuive
possibilities.
>The geological situation that made blocks being transported over long
>distance by the Ice Coat doesn't fit with that type of stone being
>transported to Newfoundland due to Ice Coat movements directions and places
>where the same type of stone was more common than in Kensington area.
So we can eliminate Newfoundland, but we could still surmise that a)
Vinland may have been at the southern (or SW) extreme of Hudson Bay; and
b) the stone may have been much closer to Hudson Bay than Kensington.
You can see what I'm try for: the major obstacle--and NO ONE has yet
overcome this--is why the norse would be in MINNESOTA at that time. It
takes a great leap of faith to go from a partially recorded royal charter
to find a group of deadbeat Western Settlement farmers to a group of 30
norse wandering the swamps of Minnesota.
If we can elimate the more seemingly economical possibilities, we will be
left with the more unusual scenarios as the only ones left, and hence this
will become my default--until more evidence comes forth, if ever.
>All in all, that scenario isn't plausible. If you look for what's written in
>re. Vinland in Adam of Bremen(1050th) and the Icelandic Sagas( 12th -13th
>Century) you will find that wine-berry is mentioned in the later(wine-berry
>are usually read as referring to grapes, but there is a Swedish word for
>"vinb[umlaut a]r" referring to the English word currants. The description
given for
>Vinland in Adam and the Sagas doesn't correspond with Newfoundland, but it
>correspond with the land south and southwest of Hudson Bay. Newfoundland can
>'t be believed to have had grapes nor currants in older ages, but Minnesota
>might have had.
How about Hudson Bay's southern coast?
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Would someone please tell me what 'diddy-wah-diddy' means?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doug Weller
I have given this a new subject line also, hoping that we can have a new thread
concentrating on the historical aspects.
In article <ylj25.13591$Za1.2...@newsc.telia.net>,
inger_e....@telia.com says...
>
> But start with this, Sweden's King Magnus Eriksson had under his
> juridisticion a total land-area larger than the Roman Empire(African part
> excluded).
What is being included? North America?
His family on both his fathers and his mothers side had had close
> contact, closer than almost all other Royal Families of Europe, with the
> Papal Roman Catholic Church for over 250 years(during the 1350th). His close
> relative St Birgitta of Vadstena thought it proper to tell the Pope what to
> do and not to do, for example to move back to Rome and other things. King
> Magnus relative Bo Johnson Griph was the wealthiest man during the Medieval
> Age, he owned Finland and the land in several of Sweden's districts(Län).
>
> King Magnus was close related to every Royal Family there was during his
> lifetime, and his ancestor had so been since the late 10th Century. The fact
> that there was "big" farmers in Vinland must have been known to King Magnus,
> due to the fact that the same fact was known from Adam of Bremens book from
> the 11th Century where such information was given.
Was this even a fact in the 11th century? And why does this make it a fact 200
years later?
There were one other
> religious reason. During the 1340-50th the Western settlement's Greenlanders
> didn't want to pay indulgence to the Roman Catholic Church, thus the reason
> for the trip to Greenland and Vinland not only can be explained but also was
> important for the King who had managed to become banned by the Pope due to
> the fact that he hadn't succeded as planned in his crusade to the Baltic
> area and Russia. The later was due to the fact that his grandfather Birger
> Jarl had declined Sweden's taxation sovereignty over Russin land in a
> Treaty.(To go into that part alone which is essential for the understanding
> why King Magnus took the Papal request for crusades to his kingdoms outer
> most distant land seriously would take over 50 pages).
>
Anyone else have any knowledge of this period in Scandinavia that can shed some
light on the above?
Thanks.
Doug Weller
says...
>
> According to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01132c.htm the English
> translation of what Adam of Bremen wrote in this respect is:
>
> "Furthermore he [King Svend] mentioned still another island found by
> many in that ocean. This island is called Winland, because
> grapevines grow there wild, yielding the finest wine. And that
> crops grow there in plenty without having been sown, I know, not
> from fabulous report, but through the definite information of the
> Danes".
>
> Currant wine? I suppose that is always possible.
>
>
>
And he calls it an island.
Juho Mattila
plus Western Karelia and most of the coast of the Gulf of Bothnia. The area is
indeed larger than Romania. African part is excluded, because it is very large and
fills one continent entirely.
Juho
Doug Weller wrote:
>
> > But start with this, Sweden's King Magnus Eriksson had under his
> > juridisticion a total land-area larger than the Roman Empire(African part
> > excluded).
>
INGER E. JOHANSSON
note that the word grapewine only occurse in translations not in the
original text!
Inger E
Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:t4rjks80unh3kjs27...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 05:57:50 GMT, "INGER E. JOHANSSON"
> <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
>
> --- snip ----
>
> >All in all, that scenario isn't plausible. If you look for what's written
in
> >re. Vinland in Adam of Bremen(1050th) and the Icelandic Sagas( 12th -13th
> >Century) you will find that wine-berry is mentioned in the
later(wine-berry
> >are usually read as referring to grapes, but there is a Swedish word for
> >"vinbär" referring to the English word currants.
>
>
> According to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01132c.htm the English
> translation of what Adam of Bremen wrote in this respect is:
>
> "Furthermore he [King Svend] mentioned still another island found by
> many in that ocean. This island is called Winland, because
> grapevines grow there wild, yielding the finest wine. And that
> crops grow there in plenty without having been sown, I know, not
> from fabulous report, but through the definite information of the
> Danes".
>
> Currant wine? I suppose that is always possible.
>
>
INGER E. JOHANSSON
you can't your history, that's for sure included in King Magnus Eriksson
jurididiction as the head of the Church for three Archbishops territory was
all of Sweden, all of Norway, Iceland(until King Magnus granddaughter
Margaretha inherited Norway after her husband than Iceland came under the
Danish crowns representative in religious matters), all of Grenland, several
of the Atlantic Island north of Scotland, 2/3 of today's Finland(owned
personally by Bo Johnson Griph a relative to the king, but the Royal Family
of Sweden had the rights to choose the Jarl of Finland and also did so),
parts of the Baltic(the Family owned the land which the German Orden hired
and also land around that). If you want to discuss this furter you better
read a bit more of the 1350th(I know that some Americans use 1350' but as
you Juho and I know the "'" is used to mark that three zeros follow
afterwards so I continue to use the 1350th.
Inger E
Juho Mattila <jm5...@uta.fi> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:394A7286...@uta.fi...
> Included are the middle parts of today's Sweden, southern half of today's
Finland
> plus Western Karelia and most of the coast of the Gulf of Bothnia. The
area is
> indeed larger than Romania. African part is excluded, because it is very
large and
> fills one continent entirely.
>
> Juho
>
> Doug Weller wrote:
>
> >
> > > But start with this, Sweden's King Magnus Eriksson had under his
> > > juridisticion a total land-area larger than the Roman Empire(African
part
> > > excluded).
> >
INGER E. JOHANSSON
Sawfish <m...@q7.com> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:9611724...@q7.q7.com...<snip>
> >Sawfish,
> >there are two major problems with your possible "solutions" to
KRS-problem:
> >1) King Magnus Eriksson and his son H[a]kon(king of Norway) had all
> reasons in
> >the world to send priests and others on the third(!) Royal Mission and
this
> >time as he had been asked to do to the outer must distant places under
his
> >juridistiction.
>
> I read this as stating that there are 3 Royal Missions to the general
> vicinity. I may have missed earlier posts, but this is the first I've
> heard of this.
Among them who have written about it is Jansén( the title of the book also
included in Grönländske Middelser is in one of the files I sent you). One of
the missions happened earlier during King Magnus Eriksson days and that
correspond to the runestone found in Disco Bay area(also mentioned in one of
the files I sent you- earlier sent to the group)
>
> What can you tell us about the a) dates for each mission; and b) the
> stated reason for each; and c) the outcome of each (as far as is known)?
The first one followed a bishop I haven't the details. You can find it in
one of the other articles in the same volume of Grönländske Middelser.
I think the one of the Geologist who have contacted me earlier could give
more information. It have to do with the way the Ice Coat grow and withdraw,
all can be seen in today's nature if you have had courses for that(here in
Sweden we up to B-level have more than two excursion out in the landscape to
complete our theoretical studies). Never the less if you look at "Bird, the
natural landscapes of Canada",1972, page 49-56 you will find a good
explination as well as good maps. Not detailed but good enough for this
purpose.
>
> Also, it is conceivable that there may well be ways other than face-down
> interment that could equally preserve the inscription. Storage in a cave,
> for example. I would not be too quick to eliminate alternatuive
> possibilities.
No, it can't have been. I try to explain to you in a private mail.
>
> >The geological situation that made blocks being transported over long
> >distance by the Ice Coat doesn't fit with that type of stone being
> >transported to Newfoundland due to Ice Coat movements directions and
places
> >where the same type of stone was more common than in Kensington area.
>
> So we can eliminate Newfoundland, but we could still surmise that a)
> Vinland may have been at the southern (or SW) extreme of Hudson Bay; and
> b) the stone may have been much closer to Hudson Bay than Kensington.
Well, Hudson Bay certainly was closer to Kensington in those days, as well
as having direct contact with several lakes and rivers five to seven day's
walking distance away up north.
>
> You can see what I'm try for: the major obstacle--and NO ONE has yet
> overcome this--is why the norse would be in MINNESOTA at that time. It
> takes a great leap of faith to go from a partially recorded royal charter
> to find a group of deadbeat Western Settlement farmers to a group of 30
> norse wandering the swamps of Minnesota.
Well there is one main reason for the Norse to settle in Minnesota when the
first one had arrived by pure accident(?) the land is more like the
Scandinavian land, soil etc than most of the other parts up Northern
North-America and then they had better harvest than on Greenland...... (btw
if you care to take a look at found harvesting tools you will have a good
understanding what I mean).
>
> If we can elimate the more seemingly economical possibilities, we will be
> left with the more unusual scenarios as the only ones left, and hence this
> will become my default--until more evidence comes forth, if ever.
>
> >All in all, that scenario isn't plausible. If you look for what's written
in
> >re. Vinland in Adam of Bremen(1050th) and the Icelandic Sagas( 12th -13th
> >Century) you will find that wine-berry is mentioned in the
later(wine-berry
> >are usually read as referring to grapes, but there is a Swedish word for
> >"vinb[umlaut a]r" referring to the English word currants. The description
> given for
> >Vinland in Adam and the Sagas doesn't correspond with Newfoundland, but
it
> >correspond with the land south and southwest of Hudson Bay. Newfoundland
can
> >'t be believed to have had grapes nor currants in older ages, but
Minnesota
> >might have had.
>
> How about Hudson Bay's southern coast?
Yes, how about that as a possible starter?
Inger E
Doug Weller
>
> Included are the middle parts of today's Sweden, southern half of today's Finland
> plus Western Karelia and most of the coast of the Gulf of Bothnia. The area is
> indeed larger than Romania. African part is excluded, because it is very large and
> fills one continent entirely.
>
into Asia, is what is being claimed.
INGER E. JOHANSSON
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:MPG.13b46add...@news.cableinet.co.uk.
..
> > translation of what Adam of Bremen wrote in this respect is:
> >
> > "Furthermore he [King Svend] mentioned still another island found by
> > many in that ocean. This island is called Winland, because
> > grapevines grow there wild, yielding the finest wine. And that
> > crops grow there in plenty without having been sown, I know, not
> > from fabulous report, but through the definite information of the
> > Danes".
> >
> > Currant wine? I suppose that is always possible.
> >
> >
> >
>
> And he calls it an island.
>
> Doug
Doug,
how can you be working in the archaeological field in Europe not knowing
that Scandinavia until the 7th Century AD also was called an Island.....
Inger E
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <t4rjks80unh3kjs27...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>>
>> According to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01132c.htm the English
>> translation of what Adam of Bremen wrote in this respect is:
>>
>> "Furthermore he [King Svend] mentioned still another island found by
>> many in that ocean. This island is called Winland, because
>> grapevines grow there wild, yielding the finest wine. And that
>> crops grow there in plenty without having been sown, I know, not
>> from fabulous report, but through the definite information of the
>> Danes".
>>
>> Currant wine? I suppose that is always possible.
>>
>>
>>
>Um. Inger said Adam Bremen wrote about 'big farmers'. Where is that bit?
Certainly not in the paragraph of Inger's text to which I was
responding.
>
>And he calls it an island.
That's true, but this may simply be due to the fact that his source,
King Sven Ulfssen who had been there as a prince sometime prior to
1075, had no idea of how large a body of land he was dealing with.
With the land being relatively newly discovered, the Norse could not
be expected to know how big it was even if it was only the size of
Greenland. To them, anything in the sea was an island.
Eric Stevens
<inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
>
>Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> skrev i
>diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:t4rjks80unh3kjs27...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 05:57:50 GMT, "INGER E. JOHANSSON"
>> <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
>>
>> --- snip ----
>>
>> >All in all, that scenario isn't plausible. If you look for what's written
>in
>> >re. Vinland in Adam of Bremen(1050th) and the Icelandic Sagas( 12th -13th
>> >Century) you will find that wine-berry is mentioned in the
>later(wine-berry
>> >are usually read as referring to grapes, but there is a Swedish word for
>> >"vinbär" referring to the English word currants.
>>
>>
>> According to http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01132c.htm the English
>> translation of what Adam of Bremen wrote in this respect is:
>>
>> "Furthermore he [King Svend] mentioned still another island found by
>> many in that ocean. This island is called Winland, because
>> grapevines grow there wild, yielding the finest wine. And that
>> crops grow there in plenty without having been sown, I know, not
>> from fabulous report, but through the definite information of the
>> Danes".
>>
>> Currant wine? I suppose that is always possible.
>>
>Eric,
>note that the word grapewine only occurse in translations not in the
>original text!
>
I haven't seen the original text and would be unlikely to be able to
read it if I did. However the trnslation I used merely says 'wine'
without saying what it was made from. People have assumed this meant
grapes and probably did if grapes were to be found there. But I have
happily drunk wine made from parsnips and know that grapes are not
necessary. Currant's will certainly do.
Doug Weller
says...
[SNIP]> >
> >And he calls it an island.
>
> That's true, but this may simply be due to the fact that his source,
> King Sven Ulfssen who had been there as a prince sometime prior to
> 1075, had no idea of how large a body of land he was dealing with.
> With the land being relatively newly discovered, the Norse could not
> be expected to know how big it was even if it was only the size of
> Greenland. To them, anything in the sea was an island.
>
I don't take the island comment seriously, just noting it because I don't think
you can take a text like that and simply pick and choose as to what parts you
take literally and what parts you don't when you are trying to say what it
means. They had found a number of islands as we know.
But why do you say that Ulfssen had been there?
See http://emuseum.mankato.msus.edu/prehistory/vikings/oview.html
Which says
"Adam of Bremen
A description of the history and geography of Scandinavia is contained in his
History of the Archbishops of Hamberg (1075). Adam relates information he
received from the Danish king Sven Ulfssen, who was called Estrithson in English
sources.
" King Sven related that there was another island in that ocean which had been
discovered by many and was called Vinland because vines grow wild there and
yield excellent wine, and moreover, self-sown grain grows there in abundance. ""
As part of a general discussion of Vinland (which, as with many commentaries on
Vinland, argues it was abandoned relatively soon.).
Doug
Doug
Raimo Kangasniemi
> jurididiction as the head of the Church for three Archbishops territory was
> all of Sweden, all of Norway, Iceland(until King Magnus granddaughter
> Margaretha inherited Norway after her husband than Iceland came under the
> Danish crowns representative in religious matters), all of Grenland, several
> of the Atlantic Island north of Scotland, 2/3 of today's Finland(owned
> personally by Bo Johnson Griph a relative to the king, but the Royal Family
> of Sweden had the rights to choose the Jarl of Finland and also did so),
> parts of the Baltic(the Family owned the land which the German Orden hired
> and also land around that). If you want to discuss this furter you better
> read a bit more of the 1350th(I know that some Americans use 1350' but as
> you Juho and I know the "'" is used to mark that three zeros follow
> afterwards so I continue to use the 1350th.
Now one has to remember that Magnus Eriksson gave Norway to his
younger son
in 1343; what is now southern Sweden was his for only a part of his
rule,
during the greatest weakness of Denmark, to whom these areas
belonged;
Swedish controlled 1/3 of Finland and in the northern parts of Norway
and
Sweden there were no defined borders between these countries and
Novgorod.
Denmark had owned areas in what is now Estonia, to my knowledge,
Sweden didn´t.
Certainly the area that Magnus Eriksson(1316-1374, ruled 1319-1363)
controlled
was smaller than that of either of the first rulers of Kalmar union,
Margaretha
II(1352-1412) or Eerik XIII(1382-1459).
>
> Inger E
>
> Juho Mattila <jm5...@uta.fi> skrev i
> diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:394A7286...@uta.fi...
> > Included are the middle parts of today's Sweden, southern half of today's
> Finland
> > plus Western Karelia and most of the coast of the Gulf of Bothnia. The
> area is
> > indeed larger than Romania. African part is excluded, because it is very
> large and
> > fills one continent entirely.
> >
> > Juho
> >
> > Doug Weller wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > But start with this, Sweden's King Magnus Eriksson had under his
> > > > juridisticion a total land-area larger than the Roman Empire(African
> part
> > > > excluded).
> > >
Juho Mattila
Doug Weller wrote:
> In article <394A7286...@uta.fi>, jm5...@uta.fi says...
> >
> > Included are the middle parts of today's Sweden, southern half of today's Finland
> > plus Western Karelia and most of the coast of the Gulf of Bothnia. The area is
> > indeed larger than Romania. African part is excluded, because it is very large and
> > fills one continent entirely.
> >
> Not Romania, larger than the Roman Empire, the bit stretching from Britain east
> into Asia, is what is being claimed.
INGER E. JOHANSSON
...
> In article <394A7286...@uta.fi>, jm5...@uta.fi says...
> >
> > Included are the middle parts of today's Sweden, southern half of
> >today's Finland plus Western Karelia and most of the coast of the
> > Gulf of Bothnia. The area is indeed larger than Romania. African
> >part is excluded, because it is very large and fills one continent
entirely.
> >
>
> Not Romania, larger than the Roman Empire, the bit stretching from
>Britain east into Asia, is what is being claimed.
If you could read Swedish you would have been able to read
Prof. Adolf Schück's and others information re. Sweden's 14th
Century in STF(Svenska Turistföreningens) Yearbook 1947.
I guess Prof. Schück writing for year 1332 re the European part
are ref. enough for that part:
Quotation in Swedish with a short summery:
1332 "Blir den sextonårige Magnus Eriksson på Bohus förklarad som
sina bägge rikens myndige regent. I Skåne utbryter ett uppror, sedan
den oduglige danske konungen Kristofer pantförskrivit detta landskap
jämte Blekinge till en av Holsteins tyska grevar. Ärkebiskopen av Lund
infinner sig i Kalmar i spetsen för en delegation, som uppmanar
konung Magnus att bliva skåningarnas rätte herre och furste. Så
tillfaller ett nytt, tredje rike den unge Magnus: Skåneland. Den
holsteinske greven avstår från sina anspråk mot en gottgörelse av
34 000 mark silver - en för dåtida förhållanden ofantlig summa. Även
Halland kommer start helt i Magnus Erikssons besittning. Hans
myndighet sträcker sig nu från gränsfästet Vardöhus vid Ishavet i norr
till de av hanseatiska köpmän livligt besökta Skånemarknaderna - främst
vid Skanör -i söder, och från den norska fiskehandelns medelpunkt
Bergen vid Västerhavet till Viborgs fäste i öster."
Short summery in English. In 1332 the Archbishop of Lund together
with a delegation from Skåne travel to Kalmar[lock at the mainland
opposite to Öland ] begging King Magnus Eriksson to become the
true regent of Skåne.
The Danish King Kristofer had pledge Skåne to the Duke of Holstein.
King Magnus bought Skåne for the[at that time enormous] sum of
34 000 Mark silver. Also Halland short there after came under the
reign of King Magnus. King Magnus was now the legal sovereign
over a land reaching from the fortress Vardöhus by the Arctic Ocean
(close to the border) in the North to Skanör in south and from Bergen
in west to Viborg's fortess in east[look west of Ladoga].
End of summery.
For the Baltic part you could start by reading Rimbert's Vita Ansgari
[written 871 AD confirming the Nestor Chronicle's notation re. Swedish
taxation area in the Baltic -west Russian region.] or you could read Adam
of Bremen's book from 1050th comparing them with the Swedish-Russian
Trakta after the peace in Nöteborg 1323[King Magnus Eriksson ruled
Sweden from 1319]. In that peace Sweden lost Finnish and Russian
areas close to west Ladoga as well as land in eastern Finland north of
Ladoga. The Swedish territory in Finland after 1323 AD contained
all land west of a line from Pyhäjoki river - Nyslott[Savonlinna] -
Nöteborg[by Neva river]. Ref. Ahnlund Nils, Den Svenska utrikes
Politikens Historia 1:1, Tiden före 1560, edited Stockholm 1956 page 64-65.
For the parts of the Baltic region you have to look into the Vatican's
archive for year 1358, Collegtorie 97, folio 2-98 where receipts for the
Pope's taxation collecting from Sweden(Uppsala archbishop's juridiction
areas, Lund archbishop's juridiction,) as well as the Norwegian
and Danish Archbishops' juridistiction areas are documented)
The Icelandic Church belonged to Norway, as did the land in Iceland
[even if the Icelender did all they could to make believe that they were
free of Norse law], the Greenland Church belonged to Norway as well.
It wasn't before Queen Margaretha of Denmark[widow of king Magnus's
son Håkon]took reign in the name of King Håkon's and her son the
Norwegian King Olof/Olav Håkonsson and by the son's death inherited
Norway that Iceland and Greenland came under the Danish crown.
Greenland still belongs to Denmark to this day.
Had you been able to read Prof. Schücks[ref. above] you would had had
all necessary information regarding the periods when King Magnus
Eriksson had to send army-men and sometimes participated himself in the
voyages/crusades such as in the war between England and France[ due to
brother in law, his wife Bianca of Namur's brother. who lived in Flandern
and was one of the English Kings Noblemen], or in the crusade to Finland
where some Christians had turned to closer contacts with the Ortodox
Church.
Magnus son and co-ruler Erik(who took most of Sweden by force
from his father in 1356 and how King Magnus once again had the
trone in 1359 when his son Erik had died. You would have known
about the reasons why King Magnus had to flee from Sweden in 1364
and you would have had other for the 14th Century
discussions necessary knowledge regarding the King's close relative
St. Birgitta's close contacts with the Pope.
You also would have known that Bo Johnson Griph had inherited his land both
from his mother's and his father's side. You would have known that Bo
Johnson Griph among his ancestors had Duke Knut of Reval and thereby also
the Danish King Valdemar Sejr; members of the so called Folkunga Dynasty,
Mecklenburgers, members of the Holstein Dynasty, the Norwegian Royal Family
and so on. Bo Johnson Griph helped his relative the Swedish King with money
more than once when the king was going on or sent someone on voyage and/or
crusades.
So Doug, you see the claims aren't mine, there are there to be read by
anyone
who takes time reading ALL Prime sources concerning dealing with King
Magnus juridistiction and/or the Greenland contact.
As for Vinland I still advise you to read Adam of Bremen...
Inger E
Doug Weller
inger_e....@telia.com says...
>
> As for Vinland I still advise you to read Adam of Bremen...
>
Doug
Doug Weller
> Sorry, I guess I should start using the ;)
>
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <iaelks4askgt7eo27...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:27:22 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>[SNIP]> >
>> >And he calls it an island.
>>
>> That's true, but this may simply be due to the fact that his source,
>> King Sven Ulfssen who had been there as a prince sometime prior to
>> 1075, had no idea of how large a body of land he was dealing with.
>> With the land being relatively newly discovered, the Norse could not
>> be expected to know how big it was even if it was only the size of
>> Greenland. To them, anything in the sea was an island.
>>
>I don't take the island comment seriously, just noting it because I don't think
>you can take a text like that and simply pick and choose as to what parts you
>take literally and what parts you don't when you are trying to say what it
>means. They had found a number of islands as we know.
>
>But why do you say that Ulfssen had been there?
>
>See http://emuseum.mankato.msus.edu/prehistory/vikings/oview.html
Aah. The battle of the URLs! :-)
See also http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01132c.htm where the
penultimate paragraph says of Adam of Bremen:
"He also quotes from the Venerable Bede and the Latin Fathers,
Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory the Great. But his most valuable
information was obtained orally from persons who had actually
visited the lands which he describes. The most notable of these
witnesses is the Danish King Svend Estridson, "who remembered all
the deeds of the barbarians as if they had been written down" (II,
41). Adam's journey to this king, undertaken for the express
purpose of obtaining information, has been mentioned".
I was searching Adam of Bremen for an entirely different reason so
didn't note the URL which discussed Svend travelling to Vinland while
still a prince. However it does seem he definitely did have first-hand
experience.
-------- snip ==============
Søren Larsen
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:MPG.13b468378...@news.cableinet.co.uk...
> Geology newsgroups removed, soc.culture.nordic and soc.history medieval
added.
>
> I have given this a new subject line also, hoping that we can have a new
thread
> concentrating on the historical aspects.
>
> In article <ylj25.13591$Za1.2...@newsc.telia.net>,
> inger_e....@telia.com says...
> >
> > juridisticion a total land-area larger than the Roman Empire(African
part
> > excluded).
>
>
> > contact, closer than almost all other Royal Families of Europe, with the
> > Papal Roman Catholic Church for over 250 years(during the 1350th). His
close
> > relative St Birgitta of Vadstena thought it proper to tell the Pope what
to
> > do and not to do, for example to move back to Rome and other things.
King
> > Magnus relative Bo Johnson Griph was the wealthiest man during the
Medieval
> > Age, he owned Finland and the land in several of Sweden's
districts(Län).
> >
> > King Magnus was close related to every Royal Family there was during his
> > lifetime, and his ancestor had so been since the late 10th Century. The
fact
> > that there was "big" farmers in Vinland must have been known to King
Magnus,
> > due to the fact that the same fact was known from Adam of Bremens book
from
> > the 11th Century where such information was given.
>
200
> years later?
>
>
> > religious reason. During the 1340-50th the Western settlement's
Greenlanders
> > didn't want to pay indulgence to the Roman Catholic Church, thus the
reason
> > for the trip to Greenland and Vinland not only can be explained but also
was
> > important for the King who had managed to become banned by the Pope due
to
> > the fact that he hadn't succeded as planned in his crusade to the Baltic
> > area and Russia. The later was due to the fact that his grandfather
Birger
> > Jarl had declined Sweden's taxation sovereignty over Russin land in a
> > Treaty.(To go into that part alone which is essential for the
understanding
> > why King Magnus took the Papal request for crusades to his kingdoms
outer
> > most distant land seriously would take over 50 pages).
> >
some
> light on the above?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Doug
In 1319 the 3 year old Norwegian crown prince Magnus Eriksson was elected to
the
vacant Swedish throne. In 1332 he was hailed as king in the two countries.
In 1330 the Danish provinces east of the Sound was pawned to duke Johan of
Holstein.
In 1332 Magnus Eriksson bought the security and tax income the provinces
represented..
It was part of the deal that the provinces could be redeemed anytime by the
rightful
Danish king. It is probable that Magnus had an eye out for the vacant Danish
throne.
In 1335 he married Blanche of Namur
At negotiations in Varberg 1343 it was decided that the personal union
between
Norway and Sweden should be abandoned. Magnus oldest son Erik was to
inherit Sweden and his younger son Haakon was chosen as king of Norway.
In 1356 Erik Magnusson was hailed as king in Sweden while his father was
still alive.
This turned out to be a bad idea as he lead a rebellion from southern
Sweden.
In 1359 the Danish king Valdemar under pretext of helping Magnus against
the rebellion invaded the south and reclaimed the Danish provinces.
In 1364 the Swedish magnates deposed Magnus Eriksson and he had to
flee to Norway.
cheers
Soren Larsen
Angelsmark
Jonathan Stone wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Normal people use "Re:" (whether Scandinavian or not). Using "SV:"
> fragments threads. One is forced to conclude that Inger's earlier
> claims to knowledge about how computers work was incorrect; or that
> Inger knows better, but is choosing to fragment threads regardless.
>
> You choose.
Both conclusions are wrong. 'SV:' is added by the Swedish version of
Outlook Express. The fragmenting of threads should thus be credited to
Microsoft Sweden rather than mrs Inger Johansson.
-o
Søren Larsen
Angelsmark <ol...@ida.liu.se> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:394B98E1...@ida.liu.se...
It's not just the Swedish version the problem exists in the Danish and
probably the Norwegian versions too.
And it's a "feature" that was introduced in Outlook Express 5.xx. There was
no problem in previous versions.
You can however change the subject line manually.But it is tedious and you
are prone to forget it if you are posting
in both English and Scandinavian groups.
Harald Henkel
Søren Larsen <soh...@wanadoo.dk> schrieb im Beitrag
<VbN25.1059$k3.2...@news0.mobilixnet.dk>...
I really don't understand why all you guys have problems with splitting
threads.
I don't know any Usenet Newsreader who would split threads because of
changed subject lines.
This is because the news are not grouped by subject line but by their
unique identifier (like VbN25.1059$k3.2...@news0.mobilixnet.dk).
Perhaps MS Outlook does this ?
Would be one more reason to throw this crap where it belongs...
;-))
Harald Henkel
Søren Larsen
Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:amnmksscq071oc3d0...@4ax.com...
.Furthermore he [King Svend] mentioned still another island found by many in
that ocean.
This island is called Winland, because grapevines grow there wild, yielding
the finest wine.
And that crops grow there in plenty without having been sown, I know,
not from fabulous report, but through the definite information of the
Danes. .
What beside the text above makes you think that Svend Estridsen ever visited
Greenland or Vinland?
When in his career would he have done it?
Why do you think he would have risked his royal butt in Norwegian waters?
cheers
Soren Larsen
INGER E. JOHANSSON
Raimo Kangasniemi <raimo.ka...@pp.inet.fi> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3769F6...@pp.inet.fi...
> > you can't your history, that's for sure included in King Magnus Eriksson
> > jurididiction as the head of the Church for three Archbishops territory
was
> > all of Sweden, all of Norway, Iceland(until King Magnus granddaughter
> > Margaretha inherited Norway after her husband than Iceland came under
the
> > Danish crowns representative in religious matters), all of Grenland,
several
> > of the Atlantic Island north of Scotland, 2/3 of today's Finland(owned
> > personally by Bo Johnson Griph a relative to the king, but the Royal
Family
> > of Sweden had the rights to choose the Jarl of Finland and also did so),
> > parts of the Baltic(the Family owned the land which the German Orden
hired
> > and also land around that). If you want to discuss this furter you
better
> > read a bit more of the 1350th(I know that some Americans use 1350' but
as
> > you Juho and I know the "'" is used to mark that three zeros follow
> > afterwards so I continue to use the 1350th.
>
> Now one has to remember that Magnus Eriksson gave Norway to his
> younger son
> in 1343; what is now southern Sweden was his for only a part of his
> rule,
Partly true, but King Magnus remain over-King in religous matters, the
reason for that his son was was chosen for Norway was that the
upper-class(note that Norway had and still have few Noblemen) wanted a King
who lived in Norway. Thus Håkon had the legal but not the religous power.
> during the greatest weakness of Denmark, to whom these areas
> belonged;
> Swedish controlled 1/3 of Finland and in the northern parts of Norway
> and
No, you are misstaken, read the Treaty and go looking inte Ahnlund than you
will know that the Swedes had more than 2/3 of today's Finland
> Sweden there were no defined borders between these countries and
> Novgorod.
Have you read you History book? Nöteborg can also be found on maps. As for
borders and fightings there happened more than once over the year by Neva
there Sweden also finally lost it's rights to demand taxe from the people of
Novgorod....... Read the history book a bit better till next time.
>
> Denmark had owned areas in what is now Estonia, to my knowledge,
> Sweden didn´t.
Denmark's Knut of Reval inherited his land in Estonia from his mother's
side - the Swedish Royal side. Sweden also had Estonia over again, but
that's an other story passing thru Knut of Reval's son Svantepolk Knutsson
who intermarried a member of the Royal Dynasty in Östergötland. Svantepolk
Knutsson is counted as a Swede, he became "Riksråd" and also Law-man of
Östergötland. Bo Johnson Griph inherited the land in Estonia. BTW Sweden had
had land in Estonia twice before and once there after.....
>
> Certainly the area that Magnus Eriksson(1316-1374, ruled 1319-1363)
> controlled
> was smaller than that of either of the first rulers of Kalmar union,
> Margaretha
> II(1352-1412) or Eerik XIII(1382-1459).
No it wasn't. But that's an other story Queen Margareta didn't have all the
Swedish land in Finland, neither did she inherit the Baltic regions.....
Inger E
Brian M. Scott
<Har...@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE> wrote:
[...]
>I really don't understand why all you guys have problems with splitting
>threads.
>I don't know any Usenet Newsreader who would split threads because of
>changed subject lines.
The newsreader Forte Free Agent threads by subject, and I assume that
the full version, Agent, does so as well. It's an excellent
newsreader even in the freeware version.
Brian M. Scott
Doug Weller
> Both conclusions are wrong. 'SV:' is added by the Swedish version of
> Outlook Express.
>
Harald Henkel
Brian M. Scott <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> schrieb im Beitrag
<394bbf51...@nntp.stratos.net>...
I really wouldn't call a newsreader which doesn't comply to the NNTP
(Network News Treansfer Protocol - the basis of more then 100000 NGs on the
internet) a good newsreader - never mind what smart features it might have
otherwise.
What does it do, if two people start new threads with the same subject
which are not directly related ?
Group them together ?
Or does it only split threads that would usually belong together, according
to message ids, because they have different titles ?
This surely would make sense, if the subject is changed intentionally.
But in this case it would be more reasonable (yet more complicated) to
start a new thread and copy some of the text of the message you refer to
manually, instead of relying on specific behaviour of any newsreader.
Harald Henkel
Jonathan Stone
Angelsmark <ol...@ida.liu.se> wrote:
>
>
>Jonathan Stone wrote:
>
>Both conclusions are wrong. 'SV:' is added by the Swedish version of
>Outlook Express. The fragmenting of threads should thus be credited to
>Microsoft Sweden rather than mrs Inger Johansson.
well, that explains a lot. OTOH, Mrs Inger Johansonwhen still
chooses to use broken M$ products...
Jonathan Stone
Harald Henkel <Har...@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE> wrote:
>I really don't understand why all you guys have problems with splitting
>threads.
>
>I don't know any Usenet Newsreader who would split threads because of
>changed subject lines.
>This is because the news are not grouped by subject line but by their
>unique identifier (like VbN25.1059$k3.2...@news0.mobilixnet.dk).
Try using a reader with the abillity to gropu articles subject rather
than (or as well as by ) thraed.
The basic bug is that extant Usenet software knows not to add "Re:" in
front of Subject: lines which already have one. The Subject: line I'm
looking at has *five* SV: prefixes. That is what seems (to me anyway)
to fragment sci.arch discussions in which Inger Johanson participates.
(Many of those discussions are large, with low s/n ratio, and often
get subject: changes wthin what trn calls a "thread").
>Perhaps MS Outlook does this ?
>Would be one more reason to throw this crap where it belongs...
well, yes.
Doug Weller
> Try using a reader with the abillity to gropu articles subject rather
> than (or as well as by ) thraed.
>
message-id or both the message-id and subject.
Doug Weller
> Sorry, Inger, I thought I was only commenting the "Roman Empire" part. But it
> seems that you were right. If you count the whole modern Sweden, Norway, Iceland
> plus 2/3 (the areal of Finland after the Treaty of Nöteborg would be rather
> under 50%) of Finland - rough 1 Mkm² - PLUS ALL OF GREENLAND - 2.2 Mkm² - it
> makes 3.2 Mkm², which is exceeds the areal of Rome West of Bosphorus (about 2.6
> Mkm² after a quick count).
> So you were right ;).
>
Greenland is pretty big, but counting it is almost cheating.:
Anyway, her argument was the Roman Empire less Africa, so I'm still not sure
she's correct.
Juho Mattila
seems that you were right. If you count the whole modern Sweden, Norway, Iceland
plus 2/3 (the areal of Finland after the Treaty of Nöteborg would be rather
under 50%) of Finland - rough 1 Mkm² - PLUS ALL OF GREENLAND - 2.2 Mkm² - it
makes 3.2 Mkm², which is exceeds the areal of Rome West of Bosphorus (about 2.6
Mkm² after a quick count).
understand?
"INGER E. JOHANSSON" wrote:
> For the Baltic part you could start by reading Rimbert's Vita Ansgari
> [written 871 AD confirming the Nestor Chronicle's notation re. Swedish
> taxation area in the Baltic -west Russian region.]
What do they tell you about the situation in the early 14th century?
> or you could read Adam
> of Bremen's book from 1050th comparing them with the Swedish-Russian
> Trakta after the peace in Nöteborg 1323[King Magnus Eriksson ruled
> Sweden from 1319]. In that peace Sweden lost Finnish and Russian
> areas close to west Ladoga as well as land in eastern Finland north of
> Ladoga.
and from the other post: "Nöteborg can also be found on maps. As for
borders and fightings there happened more than once over the year by Neva
there Sweden also finally lost it's rights to demand taxe from the people of
Novgorod.......". What?
I know there has been accepted many views around the treaty, would you explain
yours?
> <...>or in the crusade to Finland
> where some Christians had turned to closer contacts with the Ortodox
> Church.
Huh?
Juho Mattila
Doug Weller wrote:
> Greenland is pretty big, but counting it is almost cheating.:
Almost? When the claim was ">Sweden's King Magnus Eriksson had under his
> juridisticion a total land-area larger than the Roman Empire(African part
> excluded). "?
Eric Stevens
wrote:
--- snip ----
>> See also http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01132c.htm where the
>> penultimate paragraph says of Adam of Bremen:
>>
>> "He also quotes from the Venerable Bede and the Latin Fathers,
>> Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory the Great. But his most valuable
>> information was obtained orally from persons who had actually
>> visited the lands which he describes. The most notable of these
>> witnesses is the Danish King Svend Estridson, "who remembered all
>> the deeds of the barbarians as if they had been written down" (II,
>> 41). Adam's journey to this king, undertaken for the express
>> purpose of obtaining information, has been mentioned".
>>
>> I was searching Adam of Bremen for an entirely different reason so
>> didn't note the URL which discussed Svend travelling to Vinland while
>> still a prince. However it does seem he definitely did have first-hand
>> experience.
>>
>What!? Here is the text again:
>
>Furthermore he [King Svend] mentioned still another island found by many in
>that ocean. This island is called Winland, because grapevines grow there wild,
>yielding the finest wine. And that crops grow there in plenty without having
>been sown, I know, not from fabulous report, but through the definite
>information of the Danes. .
>
>What beside the text above makes you think that Svend Estridsen ever visited
>Greenland or Vinland? When in his career would he have done it?
As I mentioned, there was another URL which made the specific claim
that he had been there as a prince. Unfortunately that was not what I
was after at the time so I did not make a note of it.
>Why do you think he would have risked his royal butt in Norwegian waters?
I don't even know why he might risk his royal butt ...
It did strike me as being rather adventurous and would have entailed
him participating in a high-risk voyage of probably several years.
Eric Stevens
<Har...@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE> wrote:
--- snip ---
>> It's not just the Swedish version the problem exists in the Danish and
>> probably the Norwegian versions too.
>> And it's a "feature" that was introduced in Outlook Express 5.xx. There
>was
>> no problem in previous versions.
>>
>> You can however change the subject line manually.But it is tedious and
>you
>> are prone to forget it if you are posting
>> in both English and Scandinavian groups.
>>
>>
>>
>
>I really don't understand why all you guys have problems with splitting
>threads.
>
>I don't know any Usenet Newsreader who would split threads because of
>changed subject lines.
>This is because the news are not grouped by subject line but by their
>unique identifier (like VbN25.1059$k3.2...@news0.mobilixnet.dk).
>
>Perhaps MS Outlook does this ?
>Would be one more reason to throw this crap where it belongs...
>;-))
>
I use Agent which gives me the option of starting a new thread when
the follow up (subject) title changes. I normall have it to start a
new thread and in the good old days before Bill Gates discovered the
Internet that used to be the standard way to do it.
Headers to articles normally contain not only the unique identifier
(which you quoted above) but the identifiers of all the previous
articles in the thread. Here is the full header which came with the
article to which I am replying:
Begin
-----
From: "Harald Henkel" <Har...@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE>
Subject: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: Minnesota Lakes and Rivers, 14th century
- a further query.
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
References: <97aujs897uiv3f2vt...@4ax.com>
<gyz15.13244$Za1.2...@newsc.telia.net>
<he1ekskmlrufv1qf1...@4ax.com>
<zUS15.13408$Za1.2...@newsc.telia.net>
<8i9ukp$k5r$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU> <394B98E1...@ida.liu.se>
<VbN25.1059$k3.2...@news0.mobilixnet.dk>
Message-ID: <01bfd87b$596e6f90$0100007f@harald>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161
Date: 17 Jun 2000 16:51:12 GMT
Lines: 52
Organization: Customer of UUNET Deutschland GmbH
NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.225.135.201
X-Trace: personalnews.de.uu.net 961260672 2861 149.225.135.201
Path:
news.iprolink.co.nz!news.greennet.net!mozart.jlc.net!news.destek.net!News.Destek.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!EU.net!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!newsrouter.chello.at!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!do.de.uu.net!nr-do2.de.uu.net!personalnews.de.uu.net!not-for-mail
Xref: news.iprolink.co.nz sci.archaeology:138843
---------
End
The list of references define the thread.
Now here is one of Inger's
Begin
----------------
From: "INGER E. JOHANSSON" <inger_e....@telia.com>
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology,sci.geo.rivers+lakes,sci.archaeology
References: <97aujs897uiv3f2vt...@4ax.com>
<8hsn94$9t2$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
<Knp05.12266$Za1.1...@newsc.telia.net>
<ohl5ksgsfgfvslq1j...@4ax.com>
<8i4hfc$45i$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Jonathan's lack of knowledge re. Scientific methods.
former: Minnesota Lakes and Rivers, 14th century - a further query.
Lines: 36
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Message-ID: <How15.13198$Za1.2...@newsc.telia.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:59:35 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.67.251.105
X-Complaints-To: ab...@telia.com
X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 960926375 195.67.251.105 (Tue, 13 Jun 2000
21:59:35 MET DST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:59:35 MET DST
Organization: Telia Internet
Path:
news.iprolink.co.nz!news.xtra.co.nz!enews.sgi.com!news-feed.fnsi.net!netnews.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeedZ.netscum.dQ!netscum.int!newsfeed101.telia.com!masternews.telia.net!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: news.iprolink.co.nz sci.geo.geology:74591
sci.geo.rivers+lakes:1728 sci.archaeology:138541
------------
End.
You will see that Inger's header also contains all the threading
information in the references but for some reason it has started a new
thread.
Maybe someone who knows more about this than I do (Jonathan Stone?)
can explain why Inger's software sometimes (but not always) breaks
threads.
Eric Stevens
<Har...@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE> wrote:
>
>
>Brian M. Scott <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> schrieb im Beitrag
><394bbf51...@nntp.stratos.net>...
>> On 17 Jun 2000 16:51:12 GMT, "Harald Henkel"
>> <Har...@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >I really don't understand why all you guys have problems with splitting
>> >threads.
>>
>> >I don't know any Usenet Newsreader who would split threads because of
>> >changed subject lines.
>>
>> The newsreader Forte Free Agent threads by subject, and I assume that
>> the full version, Agent, does so as well. It's an excellent
>> newsreader even in the freeware version.
>>
>> Brian M. Scott
>>
>
>I really wouldn't call a newsreader which doesn't comply to the NNTP
>(Network News Treansfer Protocol - the basis of more then 100000 NGs on the
>internet) a good newsreader - never mind what smart features it might have
>otherwise.
>
>What does it do, if two people start new threads with the same subject
>which are not directly related ?
See my other article in which I list two separate headers. The
threading is done by specific message reference, not title. I presume
that a new thread is started by not quoting a reference to a previous
message.
>Group them together ?
>Or does it only split threads that would usually belong together, according
>to message ids, because they have different titles ?
>
>This surely would make sense, if the subject is changed intentionally.
>
>But in this case it would be more reasonable (yet more complicated) to
>start a new thread and copy some of the text of the message you refer to
>manually, instead of relying on specific behaviour of any newsreader.
Eric Stevens
Keith Littleton
Hyper10n <hype...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Keith Littleton wrote:
>>On 14 Jun 2000 17:10:16 +1200,
>>Message-ID: <lu4eksor995pjroek...@4ax.com>
>>Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 03:54:20 GMT,
>>>Keith Littleton <litt...@katie.vnet.net> wrote:
>>
>>... text about Lake Agassiz deleted ...
... more text deleted ...
><excellent post and references (that's refeshing) snipped>
>
>What if the Red River was just flooding at
>the time?
The swift and turbulent currents at flood stage
would have made upstream navigation very difficult,
if not impossible. They would likely have walked
and not taken their boat that far. It would have
been easier and less dangerous.
>I admit I don't know the area. I can't even find
>Kensington on a useful map on the web (I'll try
>looking at real maps tomorrow). I do have a
>better idea now of where the movie _Fargo_ was set.
For those people who cannot get to real maps:
1. People can get information about "Kensington"
by using the "Geographic Names Information System
United States and Territories" at:
http://mapping.usgs.gov/www/gnis/gnisform.html
Enter the following parameters:
Feature Name: Runestone,
State or Territory Name: Minnesota, and
Feature Type: Populated Place, and
you will get information about Kensington, Minnesota.
The information includes, the link for a
topogarphic map at:
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.asp?S=14&T=2&X=90&Y=1585&Z=15&W=2
Note that runestone Hill is in the northeast
corner of this map. Also, the menu has a
provision for downloading the image of the map.
For an aerial photo of the Kensington area, go to:
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.asp?S=14&T=1&X=90&Y=1585&Z=15&W=2
It too can be downloaded using the menu at the top.
2. People can get information about "Runestone Hill"
by using the "Geographic Names Information System
United States and Territories" at:
http://mapping.usgs.gov/www/gnis/gnisform.html
Enter the following parameters:
Feature Name: Runestone
State or Territory Name: Minnesota
Feature Type: Summit
And a person gets a web page with:
"RUNESTONE, MINNESOTA -- SUMMIT"
This page has links to 1. "View USGS Digital
Orthophoto Quadrangle (DOQ)" at:
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.asp?S=14&T=1&X=92&Y=1586&Z=15&W=0
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.asp?S=14&T=1&X=91&Y=1586&Z=15&W=0
2. and "View USGS Digital Raster Graphic (DRG),"
a topographic map, at:
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.asp?S=14&T=2&X=92&Y=1586&Z=15&W=0
Yours,
Keith Littleton
litt...@vnet.net
New Orleans, LA
"No. But when we crave power over life(endless
wealth, unassailable safety, immortality,)then
desire becomes greed. And if knowledge allies
itself to that greed, then comes evil. ..."
Sparrowhawk in "The Farthest Shore"
- Ursula K. LeGuin
Sawfish
>On 17 Jun 2000 16:51:12 GMT, "Harald Henkel"
><Har...@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE> wrote:
Jeezus...
So now we are having a pissing contest over newsreaders?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we use Occam's Razor, whose razor will *he* use?" --Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
da...@ecn.ab.ca
: How about Hudson Bay's southern coast?
Sawfish:
Today, there's conifer forest or tundra or peat bog there, even
along the south coast of James Bay.
Not a chance that there would be enough _Ribies_ (currant) bushes
for even a small-scale winery, even during the Late Medieval warming.
Vinland-on-Hudson-Bay is a pipe dream, no more, no less.
Wondering if this should be cross-posted to alt.history.what-if,
Daryl Krupa email: da...@ecn.ab.ca
Eric Stevens
>Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> writes:
>
>>On 17 Jun 2000 16:51:12 GMT, "Harald Henkel"
>><Har...@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE> wrote:
>
>Jeezus...
>
>So now we are having a pissing contest over newsreaders?
Seems like it.
Some cause trouble. Some don't.
Eric Stevens
>Sawfish (m...@q7.com) wrote (plus snip):
>: How about Hudson Bay's southern coast?
>
>Sawfish:
>
> Today, there's conifer forest or tundra or peat bog there, even
>along the south coast of James Bay.
> Not a chance that there would be enough _Ribies_ (currant) bushes
>for even a small-scale winery, even during the Late Medieval warming.
> Vinland-on-Hudson-Bay is a pipe dream, no more, no less.
While you are still probably right, you should not overlook the fact
that the coastline of Hudson Bay is vastly different from what it was
900 years ago. So too is the climate.
The other thing is that there is no need for it to have been on the
coast.
>
>Wondering if this should be cross-posted to alt.history.what-if,
>Daryl Krupa email: da...@ecn.ab.ca
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) hollered from the outhouse...
>
>>well, that explains a lot. OTOH, Mrs Inger Johansonwhen still
>>chooses to use broken M$ products...
>
>You mean because YOU expect a certain (English) string in the header,
>EVERYONE is supposed to use that same style?
>
>A bit presumptuous and egocentric, no?
>
In any case, a lot of unfortunate people have no choice but to use
Bill Microsoft's fine products.
Doug Weller
says...
> You mean because YOU expect a certain (English) string in the header,
> EVERYONE is supposed to use that same style?
>
>
do with language, it's the software.
Doug
Steve Marcus
Eric Stevens wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2000 01:20:47 -0700, da...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:
>
> >Sawfish (m...@q7.com) wrote (plus snip):
> >: How about Hudson Bay's southern coast?
> >
> >Sawfish:
> >
> > Today, there's conifer forest or tundra or peat bog there, even
> >along the south coast of James Bay.
> > Not a chance that there would be enough _Ribies_ (currant) bushes
> >for even a small-scale winery, even during the Late Medieval warming.
> > Vinland-on-Hudson-Bay is a pipe dream, no more, no less.
>
> While you are still probably right, you should not overlook the fact
> that the coastline of Hudson Bay is vastly different from what it was
> 900 years ago. So too is the climate.
Eric, this is precisely the sort of reply that IMHO undermines your credibility.
The man states that even in its most recent warmest period, currant bushes could
not exist in "Vinland-on-the-Hudson". You then write that you think he's
"probably right", but you then attempt to salvage the case by changing the
proposition originally put forth.
Undoubtedly the coastline of Hudson Bay is different (define "vastly", please)
than it was 900 years ago. Are you speculating that the Bay extended so far
south that the climate would different enough to have supported currants?
Undoubtedly the climate of the south coast of Hudson Bay is different today than
it was 900 years ago; it's certainly *colder*. If you think that it is
"probably right" that the climate couldn't support currants 900 years ago, what
difference would it make to that piece of information that the climate is colder
today?
>
>
> The other thing is that there is no need for it to have been on the
> coast.
But that wasn't the proposition raised. Are you alleging that the Norse
established Vinland 50 or 100 miles, or 500 miles (whatever it takes for the
climate to have been warm enough to produce currants) inland from the southern
coast of Hudson Bay? And that they neglected to mention this little tidbit of
information in their sagas or in whatever sources Inger has used to come up with
the "Hudson Bay" theory?
>
> >
> >Wondering if this should be cross-posted to alt.history.what-if,
> >Daryl Krupa email: da...@ecn.ab.ca
>
> Eric Stevens
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because
we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be
construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my
employer, but is merely my personal view.
Sawfish
>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:20:11 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
>>Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> writes:
>>
>>>On 17 Jun 2000 16:51:12 GMT, "Harald Henkel"
>>><Har...@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE> wrote:
>>
>>Jeezus...
>>
>>So now we are having a pissing contest over newsreaders?
>Seems like it.
>Some cause trouble. Some don't.
Newsreaders are the *least* of our troubles in this newsgroup.
Ah, well... I'm contributing to the problem, so that's the last you'll
hear from me concerning newsreaders on *this* thread...
(Get it?...)
>;^)
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Martyn Harrison
Scott) wrote:
>On 17 Jun 2000 16:51:12 GMT, "Harald Henkel"
><Har...@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>I really don't understand why all you guys have problems with splitting
>>threads.
>
>>I don't know any Usenet Newsreader who would split threads because of
>>changed subject lines.
>
>The newsreader Forte Free Agent threads by subject, and I assume that
>the full version, Agent, does so as well. It's an excellent
>newsreader even in the freeware version.
Options - General preferences - message lists - tick "threading by
subject" and untick "start a new thread when subject changes" to avoid
this in Agent.