Spirit Pond, Maine - sci.archaeology

Message from discussion Spirit Pond, Maine

Michael Zalar

View profile

More options Oct 18 2004, 1:59 am

Newsgroups: sci.archaeology

From: m_za...@hotmail.com (Michael Zalar)

Date: 17 Oct 2004 22:59:20 -0700

Local: Mon, Oct 18 2004 1:59 am

Subject: Re: Spirit Pond, Maine

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

"Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamo...@cox.net> wrote in message <news:ZOMbd.4504$EZ.3125@okepread07>...
> > I might direct your attention to the Kingigtorssuaq stone, a 14th
> > century stone found in Greenland:
> > http://xoomer.virgilio.it/fucina2001/_Images/rune12.jpg

> The Kingigtorssuaq stone list the names of three Norse hunters known to be
> in the area (Greenland) at the end of the 13th century. Please cite a
> peer reviewed source for the claim that it is "a 14th century stone."

I note immediatedly that although requiring a peer reviewed source,
there is no source given countering this claim. Mr. Marcus is, of
course, requiring me to do work that his is unwilling to do himself.

Without checking to far, just the few things I have at hand:

Thalbitzer, William (Two Runic Stones from Greenland and Minnesota,
Smithsonian Misc Collections, 1951) gives the date as about 1300 AD.
Udoubtably Mr. Marcus will state that this does not necessarily mean
that it is 14th century, only that it could be 14th century. Perhaps
that is not enough for him, but seems to be the only "peer reviewed"
work I have at hand. The earliest date that I have seen is actuall
about 1250, and the latest 1333. However, it does appear that calling
it a 14th century stone is reasonable.
Elsewhere:

Kare Prytz in Westward Before Columbus gives the stone a date of 1333.

Richard Nielsen in Barry Hanson's book Kensington Runestone: A Defense
of Olof Ohman... Vol II, gives the suggested date of 1314.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:BkH92GQSEZYJ:www.yukoncollege.yk...
gives the 1333 date.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:0NDW2Alr7pcJ:www.personal.utulsa...
gives 1250-1333.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:LfivNolpmMwJ:www.mnsu.edu/emuseu...
gives 1333 in a rather short piece, in which he gives two references.

I will check Viking, the North Atlantic saga later.

> Also, the stone was found on Disko Island, which is not "in Greenland" in
> the sense that the Settlements were "in Greenland", but lies midway up the
> western coast of Greenland and nowhere near where the expedition allegedly
> involving Paul Knutsen would have been in Greenland had it in fact actually
> left Norway and arrived in the Settlements. See:

> http://www.abc.net.au/science/greenland/maps.htm#greenland

> and compare:

> http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/vikings/vikingnw.gif

> You should also note from the first map that Disko Island is substantially
> north of the Hudson strait.

Yes, I know where Kingigtorssuaq is and it is a part of Greenland, and
is considered a Greenland runestone by every authority that I have
read. The Norse Greenlanders of this time did travel far north along
the coast, obviously as far north as Disco Bay (and perhaps farther, I
can check on this if you really want me to).

There is not specific knowledge as to where the Knutson expedition
went. If we presume that the voyage was, at least in part, to find
the lost member of the Western Settlement, then an expedition up the
western coast of Greenland would be a reasonable first step. How far
north is obviously unknown, but due dilligence would suggest they may
have gone as far north as the known fishing (whaling?) grounds of
Disco Bay, if not further.

Is it your presumption that they went directly from the Eastern
Settlement to Hudson Bay...??

> > You will note that the stone is laid out in straight lines,and uses
> > runes which were curved and rounded. It is also a memorial stone,
> > being found on, and referring to cairns raised on the island.

> Imprecise, and yet very telling. The King. runestone isn't a memorial stone
> in the sense that the Kensington Runestone is purported to be; it doesn't
> memorialize anyone's death. It simply explains that the cairn on which the
> King. runestone was found was **built by specific people on a specific day**
> (and not a specific date). It's purpose is to "memorialize" the people who
> built it in the sense of their *deed* of having traveled so far north (on
> their hunt). The conspicuous absence of names on the Kensington Runestone
> and the specific absence of any *deeds* other than "we made camp and then we
> fished" is very telling when comparing the two runestones.

> But hey, why confuse the issue with facts.

I didn't say that the KRS was a memorial stone. I noted the the King--
stone was a memorial stone, as you seem to admit.

Michael

> I
> > consider it possible, if unlikely, that the KRS expedition came across
> > this stone, and that it provided the 'inspiration' for the Kensington
> > Stone.

> > I should like to further note that runes were frequently used by
> > common idinviduals for leaving mundane messages, though these were
> > usually carved in wood. The runes found in Bergen are a prime example
> > of this type of inscription.

> > Also, Runes were used in text documents on paper. Indeed, Dr Nielsen
> > suggests that the person who prepared the inscription was acquainted
> > with such documents. This would further explain the use of macrons
> > above some vowels (the double dotting), as macrons were frequently in
> > use in documents of that era.

> > Perhaps, at least in terms of semantic analysis, one should call the
> > KRS a runic document carved in stone, rather than a "runestone".
> > Although there are certain similarities to runestones, there is no
> > specific evidence that suggests that the primary purpose of the
> > document was to be a runestone in any narrow sense of the word.
> > Indeed I find the dissimilarities between the KRS and runestones can
> > be used as an argument to suggest that the former is not a forgery. A
> > forger setting out to copy a runestone would have been far more
> > careful to follow traditional forms.

> > Michael

> Steve Marcus

Reply to author Forward