Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Kinsington Rune Stone Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page 1, 2  Next 
Author Message
T. Hamilton




Location: United States
Joined: 30 Dec 2009

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Sun 07 Feb, 2010 12:29 pm    Post subject: Kinsington Rune Stone         Reply with quote

Last night I watched an interesting show on the History Channel. It talked about several stones with runic script that have been found along the east coast of the U.S., and one larger one found in Kinsington, MN. All of the stones contained a rune unique to Templar ciphers. The episode explored a possibility of Templar excursions (in conjunction with the Norse) into North America around 1362-1394. A lot of the episode was devoted to a Scottish templar named Prince Henry Sinclair and a possible short-lived Templar settlement in Rhode Island. While I'm skeptical, they presented their case well enough to whet my appetite for more information. Did anyone else catch this, or had ever heard of this before? I've always been a little jealous of our European forum members and their closer proximity to all things medieval, so Templars in the backyard seems kind of exciting Laughing Out Loud
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Blaz Berlec




Location: Podgorje, Kamnik, Slovenia, Europe
Joined: 26 Aug 2003
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 4
Posts: 385

PostPosted: Sun 07 Feb, 2010 1:06 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Templars? Templar ciphers? Never heard of this in connection to the (undoubtedly fake) Kensington runestone. I think most of the runologists and historians dismiss the runestone as anything else than late 19th century forgery.

The "Templar" ciphers probably relate to the "Edward Larsson's notes", a 19th century notes that contain exactly the same rune-row as on the Kensington stone, and also contain a Pigpen cipher, devised by the Freemasons. It looks like there was a book written about that, but I'm sure it's as factual as Holy Blood, Holy Grail or DaVinci Code. Big Grin


I prefer the real stuff. Big Grin (Click on the thumbnails for larger images)



(self-portrait) Runestone U121. Stockholm, near Haga park.

Iobiorn/Øybiorn ok Svæinn/Stæinn þæiR ræistu stæin æftiR Þorfreð, boanda Ingiþoru




The runestone U 124. The inscription reads + anutr + auk × þorkiRsl × þaiR × lRtu × rasa × stain × ifR + askaut +. In English "Ônundr and Þorgísl, they had the stone raised in memory of Ásgautr."

Dating: 1050 - 1080 CE.

Location: Stockholm, Karlsberg's park. Pictures taken on 31. 12. 2009. Big Grin

Oh, and in Vallentunna, "The Kingdom of the Runes", we even saw the runestone discovered only several months before. Happy


Extant 15th Century German Gothic Armour
Extant 15th century Milanese armour
Arming doublet of the 15th century
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
T. Hamilton




Location: United States
Joined: 30 Dec 2009

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Sun 07 Feb, 2010 2:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A fake? But the Kinsington stone had a pair of gloves just like Runestone U121 sticking out of it Laughing Out Loud
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lin Robinson




Location: NC
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 1,200

PostPosted: Sun 07 Feb, 2010 2:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have seen the same show and it is pure speculation. The Kensington Rune Stone is considered by most serious scholars to be a fraud.

The Templars were founded by French knights in the Holy Land in 1118. I doubt that they were conversant in runes and there is little - perhaps no - evidence that they even had Scandanavian members. Dan Brown - a novelist after all, Mr. White and Mr. Baigent and the huge number of other writers who have taken Templar history as a special project, have produced so much mis-information and speculation and innuendo that it is becoming very difficult to sort out the truth. I can assure you that the history of the Order is far more interesting than most of the stuff these folks are writing

Lin Robinson

"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982


Last edited by Lin Robinson on Thu 11 Feb, 2010 3:36 am; edited 3 times in total
View user's profile Send private message
Lin Robinson




Location: NC
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 1,200

PostPosted: Sun 07 Feb, 2010 2:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Kinsington Rune Stone         Reply with quote

T. Hamilton wrote:
Last night I watched an interesting show on the History Channel. It talked about several stones with runic script that have been found along the east coast of the U.S., and one larger one found in Kinsington, MN. All of the stones contained a rune unique to Templar ciphers. The episode explored a possibility of Templar excursions (in conjunction with the Norse) into North America around 1362-1394. A lot of the episode was devoted to a Scottish templar named Prince Henry Sinclair and a possible short-lived Templar settlement in Rhode Island. While I'm skeptical, they presented their case well enough to whet my appetite for more information. Did anyone else catch this, or had ever heard of this before? I've always been a little jealous of our European forum members and their closer proximity to all things medieval, so Templars in the backyard seems kind of exciting Laughing Out Loud


By the way, I am quite familiar with the supposed Sinclair voyage, and have met and discussed it with Niven Sinclair, who was interviewed for the piece. I am skeptical about much of it, but there is some sketchy evidence that there was a European presence in New England in the late 14th c., and the Westford Knight stone is some of that sketchy evidence. That there were Templars involved is too far fetched to accept and the whole idea flies in the face of reason. I would also say that a friend of mine who lives in the area near Westford, has tried in vain to get a serious study made of the stone and a couple of other artifacts which were found in the area. That is due, in large part, to the fact that so much speculative writing has been published on the subject. Serious academics do not want to be associated with anything that is surrounded by so much undocumented information.

Lin Robinson

"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982


Last edited by Lin Robinson on Mon 08 Feb, 2010 3:39 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Maurizio D'Angelo




Location: Italy
Joined: 09 Feb 2009
Likes: 3 pages
Reading list: 3 books

Posts: 649

PostPosted: Sun 07 Feb, 2010 6:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Kinsington Rune Stone         Reply with quote

T. Hamilton wrote:
The episode explored a possibility of Templar excursions (in conjunction with the Norse) into North America around 1362-1394.


Templar fleet was in France on the Atlantic coast. Why? The Middle East was by all else.
The sails of Christopher Columbus were Templar crosses.
That is all ... for the rest there is no proof.

Ciao
Maurizio
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lin Robinson




Location: NC
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 1,200

PostPosted: Sun 07 Feb, 2010 7:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Kinsington Rune Stone         Reply with quote

Maurizio D'Angelo wrote:
T. Hamilton wrote:
The episode explored a possibility of Templar excursions (in conjunction with the Norse) into North America around 1362-1394.


Templar fleet was in France on the Atlantic coast. Why? The Middle East was by all else.
The sails of Christopher Columbus were Templar crosses.
That is all ... for the rest there is no proof.


The Templar fleet, if there was one at all, and there is plenty of reason to think that there were never ships owned and operated exclusively for the Order, would have been long gone by the time these speculative voyages were made.

Lin Robinson

"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982


Last edited by Lin Robinson on Mon 08 Feb, 2010 3:38 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
T. Hamilton




Location: United States
Joined: 30 Dec 2009

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Sun 07 Feb, 2010 8:00 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As I mentioned at the start, I'm skeptical about claims of Templars in the New World, and the replies to this thread only reinforce that belief. Still, it's a cool story (and one I'm suprised I had never heard of until the other night). Why does bad history make for such good TV? I'll have to ponder that as I watch Braveheart Laughing Out Loud
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sander Marechal




Location: The Netherlands
Joined: 04 Dec 2009
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 671

PostPosted: Mon 08 Feb, 2010 12:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

T. Hamilton wrote:
Why does bad history make for such good TV?


Because people don't believe reality can be as interesting and fun as fiction. Besides, making fiction is a whole lot easier and cheaper.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Liam O'Malley




Location: New JErsey
Joined: 17 Jan 2010

Posts: 29

PostPosted: Mon 08 Feb, 2010 6:26 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

early on the templars were just another holy order of knights, and by the time they got massacred the templars were basically a bank operating under a papal bull. nothing fancy. anything you hear about them was more or less propaganda supporting the massacre, or post-fact justification. nothing secret and awesome about them really, unless you consider the incredibly pivotal role they played in the crusades interesting, which i do, far more than conspiracy theories, in fact.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
T. Hamilton




Location: United States
Joined: 30 Dec 2009

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon 08 Feb, 2010 1:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sander Marechal wrote:
T. Hamilton wrote:
Why does bad history make for such good TV?


Because people don't believe reality can be as interesting and fun as fiction. Besides, making fiction is a whole lot easier and cheaper.


Sad, but true.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Michael Zalar




Location: St. Paul, MN
Joined: 08 Feb 2010

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Mon 08 Feb, 2010 8:47 pm    Post subject: A case for the Kensington Rune Stone         Reply with quote

I have been studying the Kensington Rune Stone for a little over 11 years, have published several peer reviewed articles on the artifact. I believe that I have the respect as being a reasonable and logical researcher by experts on etiher side of the authenticity question. There are numerous reasons to believe the inscription to be authentic, more than can be explained in a short article, but I would like to put forward several important ones.

There is a historic context for a voyage at the same date as is noted on the Rune Stone. A letter in the 16th century between Mercator and John Dee makes note of a voyage (copying from an earlier work) that went beyond Greenland, and returned to Bergen in 1364, a date in sync with the date of 1362 on the Kensington Stone. I tracked down several references in the 19th century to this voyage, but in every case it was referred to as an English voyage (one exception, a foot note in a book on the Kenstington Rune Stone, does reference a Swedish exploration, in a book from the late 1800s but I have not been able to track down the original reference).
Regardless, there does seem to have been a trans Greenland exploration at the time the Kensington Rune Stone claims to have been inscriped. It does not seem to be well known, and knowldege that did exsist primarily referst to it as an English rather than Swedish mission.

The county in which the stone was unearthed (in 1898) was not settled until about 1858, with the main influx of Swedish settlers not arriving until the late 1860s. Perhaps the earliest time one could reasonably expect Europeans passing bay would have been around 1847 when one of the Red River trails was created near to what was the discovery site.
The weathering on the stone strongly suggests a date prior to these times. Newton Winchell, a well respected geolgist of the early 20th century suggested the inscription was from the era of about 500 years previous (his inspection was in 1910). At the same time the state geologist of Wisconsin said the incription must be at least 50-100 years old. More recently Scot Wolter (as seen in the TV show) noted that certain micas in the stone had completely disappeared. A comparison with micas in inscriptions known to be 200 years old found that the micas, though heavily deteriorated were still in existence, suggesting the Kensington Inscription predated 200 years of age.
No geolgoist who has examined the stone has suggested the weathering was very recent to the discovery. Weathering is a very difficult subject, and cannot be used to give a specific date to an object. However the weathering on the Kenstington Rune Stone strongly suggests it was inscribed prior to the habitation of the region.

One of the runes, an 'R' rune, has a strike mark or dot in it. This dotting light enough that was not noticed until the 1950s by an opponent of authenticity. The dotted 'R' rune is an authentic rune from medieval times though it was not recognized in the modern era until the 1930s. The connection between the dotted 'R' on the Kensington Stone, and the similar medieval runes was not noticed until the past few years.
The research done into the dotted 'R' was conducted by Dr Richard Nielsen. He discovered that the the rune stood for the palatal R sound. This led to a deeper investigation of other runes on the stone that would have had the same sound - and indeed these runes were also found to be dotted (one was splayed off making it hard to recogize, and the other cut even lighter possibly to prevend splaying.
In short several authentic medieval runes were properly (from a phonetic point of view) inscribed on the Kensington Rune Stone. The existence of this type of rune as medieval was not known until roughly 40 years after the stones discovery, and the connection to the Kensington Stone not understood until the past decade. I would suggest that this rune, found on any other stone which has not been subject to such heated debate as the Kensington Stone would almost automatically demand that it be considered authentic.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
T. Hamilton




Location: United States
Joined: 30 Dec 2009

Posts: 85

PostPosted: Tue 09 Feb, 2010 6:46 pm    Post subject: Re: A case for the Kensington Rune Stone         Reply with quote

Michael Zalar wrote:

One of the runes, an 'R' rune, has a strike mark or dot in it. This dotting light enough that was not noticed until the 1950s by an opponent of authenticity. The dotted 'R' rune is an authentic rune from medieval times though it was not recognized in the modern era until the 1930s. The connection between the dotted 'R' on the Kensington Stone, and the similar medieval runes was not noticed until the past few years.
The research done into the dotted 'R' was conducted by Dr Richard Nielsen. He discovered that the the rune stood for the palatal R sound. This led to a deeper investigation of other runes on the stone that would have had the same sound - and indeed these runes were also found to be dotted (one was splayed off making it hard to recogize, and the other cut even lighter possibly to prevend splaying.
In short several authentic medieval runes were properly (from a phonetic point of view) inscribed on the Kensington Rune Stone. The existence of this type of rune as medieval was not known until roughly 40 years after the stones discovery, and the connection to the Kensington Stone not understood until the past decade. I would suggest that this rune, found on any other stone which has not been subject to such heated debate as the Kensington Stone would almost automatically demand that it be considered authentic.


What are your thoughts on the "Hooked X" rune, and its supposed connection to the Larson Papers and Templars? In other words, if the stone were proven to be authentic, would you consider that single rune enough evidence to say Templars were involved in the expedition? Personally, I'll grant the idea of an isolated Norse expedition plausible (stranger things have been discovered), but the Holy Grail hidden in Minnesota seems a bit far-fetched. Also, do you feel the whole Templar connection to the stone takes away from more serious study of it?
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Michael Zalar




Location: St. Paul, MN
Joined: 08 Feb 2010

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed 10 Feb, 2010 7:02 am    Post subject: Re: A case for the Kensington Rune Stone         Reply with quote

T. Hamilton wrote:
What are your thoughts on the "Hooked X" rune, and its supposed connection to the Larson Papers and Templars? In other words, if the stone were proven to be authentic, would you consider that single rune enough evidence to say Templars were involved in the expedition? Personally, I'll grant the idea of an isolated Norse expedition plausible (stranger things have been discovered), but the Holy Grail hidden in Minnesota seems a bit far-fetched. Also, do you feel the whole Templar connection to the stone takes away from more serious study of it?


I think much of the show was of a highly speculative nature. However, a couple of points.
I really dont know what to make of the Newport Tower - it may have been pre-colonial, it may not, I dont really have enought evidence to say.
The Spirit Pond Runestones were given short shrift mainly because the runes were too much like the (then thought of as fake) Kensington Stone. It could still be someone copying the Kensington inscription, but I think they need to be re-examined in light of the (to my mind) probably authenticity of the Kensington Stone.
I dont believe the Kensington expedition was a Templar expedition - there is some evidence to suggest that they were looking for the lost colonists of the Western Colony in Greenland. They may have been (as Coloumbus dis) looking for a route to China - hence the long upstream voyage.
There may have been Cistercians along, there is a reference to a pair of priests on the voyage returning to Bergen in 1364, though of a different sect. It may have been an error.
I do suspect that if there was a voyage to the New World by Henry Sinclair, it may have been based on the Kensington Voyage. Bergen and Norther Scotland were in close contact, and the information may have slipped through. And it is not totally unreasonable that Sinclair may have had connections to the Templars - or maybe not - it is an interesting and at least plausible connection, but not to the extent suggested in the film.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
R Smith




Location: MI
Joined: 09 Nov 2004

Posts: 44

PostPosted: Wed 10 Feb, 2010 12:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

If the Kensington stone had been found by someone not Scandinavian in an area not populated by those from Scandinavia then it would be much easier to believe. Are we to believe it just a happy coincidence that Sven off the boat happened to find archeological evidence in his backyard that his ancestors had visited there centuries before? That raises the BS flag quite high for me.
Doubtless many people were/are somehow comforted by this and clung to it. Add Templars into the mix and the so called "History" channel had a sure hit.

"Those with wisdom loathe the one forced to defend." - Liechtenauer

Ars Gladii
Detroit, MI
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Roger Hooper




Location: Northern California
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 3,791

PostPosted: Wed 10 Feb, 2010 1:25 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

R Smith wrote:
.
Add Templars into the mix and the so called "History" channel had a sure hit.


And If someone says that the runestone somehow predicts the Apocalypse, it would have been even better for the Bad History Channel
View user's profile Send private message
Lin Robinson




Location: NC
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 1,200

PostPosted: Wed 10 Feb, 2010 2:47 pm    Post subject: Re: A case for the Kensington Rune Stone         Reply with quote

Michael Zalar wrote:
I do suspect that if there was a voyage to the New World by Henry Sinclair, it may have been based on the Kensington Voyage. Bergen and Norther Scotland were in close contact, and the information may have slipped through. And it is not totally unreasonable that Sinclair may have had connections to the Templars - or maybe not - it is an interesting and at least plausible connection, but not to the extent suggested in the film.


Michael...

Nothing is completely unreasonable. However, the preponderance of evidence says that Prince Henry Sinclair had no Templar connections. His supposed voyage to North America - and I do think that could have happened, that the ability and technology were available - took place 72 years after the Templars were disbanded by the Pope. Once the Order was dissolved, in fact some years before, the reason to have an order of military monks who could not, by their rule, fight against fellow Christians, had evaporated. After the suppression there is absolutely zero evidence that any group of Templars survived "underground". I mean none. What you read about today, in books like The Temple and the Lodge, and others of that ilk, is rank speculation.

One other point to consider about the Kensington stone. We know that Norse explorers landed in Newfoundland and established a settlement which they occupied for perhaps two years. The stories told in the sagas are supported by the site and the artifacts found there. However, so far at least, no rune stones have turned up. Given that the group which is supposed to have carved the Kensington Stone was on the move a lot, or at least that is the belief, then how did they have the time to sit down and laboriously carve out the stone?

I think logic alone indicates that this is a recently made fraud.

Lin Robinson

"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
View user's profile Send private message
Jared Smith




Location: Tennessee
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 3
Posts: 1,532

PostPosted: Wed 10 Feb, 2010 2:59 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have not seen this television show. The Templar theory explanation of some similar stones has been explored (undoubtedly with a bias) in some books though.

I have a copy of the book "Templars in America", Tim Wallace-Murray, and Marilyn Hopkins, 2004. I don't recall a discussion of the Kensington stone it the book. There was another stone discussed; the "boatstone at Westford MA, etc. That text has some discussion of the background of the discovery of the "boatstone", and claims that there is an extant Captain's (Nicolo Zeno) journal of a "Templar" voyage supposedly occurring early in the 14th century, but not published until 1536 along with some letters. (This was long after the captain's death.) The explanation for the delay in publication advocated in "Templars in America" was that the earlier explorers sought to keep the secrete of the continent's existence a secret until so many knew of it that publication no longer mattered. The route discussed (Greenland, Nova Scotia, New England) was replicated in a yacht, based on the journal descriptions, by Lara Zolo in 1999-2000.

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Zalar




Location: St. Paul, MN
Joined: 08 Feb 2010

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed 10 Feb, 2010 6:00 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

R Smith wrote:
If the Kensington stone had been found by someone not Scandinavian in an area not populated by those from Scandinavia then it would be much easier to believe. Are we to believe it just a happy coincidence that Sven off the boat happened to find archeological evidence in his backyard that his ancestors had visited there centuries before? That raises the BS flag quite high for me.
Doubtless many people were/are somehow comforted by this and clung to it. Add Templars into the mix and the so called "History" channel had a sure hit.


As far as evidence pro or con, that argument is mostly a red herring, at least as far as i am concerned. The Rune Stone should stand on its own evidence as to authenticity, not on the ethnicity of the person finding it. It should not be surprising that Scandinavians settled in the same latitudes where Scandinavians are likely to have explored. Minnesota and Wisconsin were settled mostly by Germans and Scandinavians. Mexico and much of the Carribean by the Spanish. Shrugs.
If it had been modern Scandinavians creating the stone, they had plenty of resources to create a far better forgery. About a third of the runes on the stone were simply not found in the common books ot the time. The stone would have looked considerably different runically had it been done by Scandinavians using the books they had at hand.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lin Robinson




Location: NC
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 1,200

PostPosted: Wed 10 Feb, 2010 6:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jared Smith wrote:
I have not seen this television show. The Templar theory explanation of some similar stones has been explored (undoubtedly with a bias) in some books though.

I have a copy of the book "Templars in America", Tim Wallace-Murray, and Marilyn Hopkins, 2004. I don't recall a discussion of the Kensington stone it the book. There was another stone discussed; the "boatstone at Westford MA, etc. That text has some discussion of the background of the discovery of the "boatstone", and claims that there is an extant Captain's (Nicolo Zeno) journal of a "Templar" voyage supposedly occurring early in the 14th century, but not published until 1536 along with some letters. (This was long after the captain's death.) The explanation for the delay in publication advocated in "Templars in America" was that the earlier explorers sought to keep the secrete of the continent's existence a secret until so many knew of it that publication no longer mattered. The route discussed (Greenland, Nova Scotia, New England) was replicated in a yacht, based on the journal descriptions, by Lara Zolo in 1999-2000.


Hi Jared...

I have some knowledge of the Sinclair voyage (supposed voyage) and all the stuff surrounding it. I am a member of the Clan Gunn Societies of North America and the UK, past president of the NA group and former chairman of the Westford Knight committee. As you may know, the Westford Knight is a very dim image of a medieval knight that appears on a stone just outside of Westford, MA. Sir Iain Moncrieffe of that Ilk, the now-deceased Albany Herald of the Court of the Lord Lyon, in his widely known book on the Highland clans, examined a drawing of the arms on the shield of that image and opined that they were probably those of a member of the Clan Gunn and dated from the 14th c. He really hedged on his comments a lot, qualifying them with the statement that they resembled the arms of some of the Norse-Celtic clans of the far north of Scotland, meaning of course that he could be wrong. He also included mention of the Westford Knight in his piece on the Sinclairs in the same book.

In the early 1990s, the Clan Gunn Society of NA hired an archaeologist to go to Westford, make a mold from the rock and cast several reproductions. Later the archaeologist and his team went to Scotland, taking the mold, and there cast a replica of the stone which is now housed in the Clan museum in Latheron, Caithness. It was my honor to formally present the stone to the museum at its unveiling.

Now, I have to admit that picturing the knight on the stone, much less the coat of arms, is a leap of faith. What is left of the original image is very faint and the image that Sir Iain used to draw his conclusions was...a drawing. There have been rubbings done recently, but it appears that those were touched up a bit and so it is hard to rely on them. At any rate, our guy who did the castings says that the carvings appear to be European in origin. The one image that is readily apparent on the rock appears to be the pommel, grip and cross of a sword. The pommel is wheel-shaped and the cross is very simple. So, there is something there but nobody has determined exactly what, to my satisfaction, and I doubt that they ever will. That leads me to the "boat stone" which is in the Westford museum, along with couple of other carved stones. The boat stone dates no earlier than the early 19th c....end of story there.

The Zeno narrative, as you mention, is supposedly from letters written by the Zeno brothers, Venetian seafarers. According to the stories, one of the Zenos met Prince Henry Sinclair, who was at the time Jarl of Orkney, holding his title from the King of Norway, who was still in charge of that part of the world in the 14th c. Sinclair was planning a voyage westward, thanks to having heard about land out that way from some sailors who had been there. Antonio Zeno went with him on his first trip. The narrative describes places which could have been in Nova Scotia and as far south as Massachusetts. The Gunn connection comes from a cousin of Prince Henry, by the name of James Gunn who was the Crowner of Caithness at the time. The Crowner drops from sight around the late 14th c. and there is no known grave site for him. It is not hard to put two and two together and place Sir James on one of Sinclair's ships and also meeting with an untimely death while in Massachusetts. There he was buried and an effigy carved in his memory. However, like nearly all the rest, this is pure speculation and there is no documentation to back it up. The Zeno narratives themselves are highly suspect. Supposedly they were written immediately following the voyage. Some years later they were destroyed accidentally by a member of the Zeno family, then recreated from memory by those who had read them! The narrative never refers to Sinclair by name, calling the leader of the expedition "Zichmi". Sir James Gunn is not mentioned. Some of the descriptions of places visited do not jibe with any known location. In short, this could be a fanciful work designed to give some credit for the discovery of North America to Venetians as opposed to that Genoan in the hire of Spain, Christopher Columbus. From this has sprung all sorts of theories about who was along, what the motives of the voyage were, how long they were there, etc. Rosslyn Chapel near Edinburgh, which was not built until the late 15th c. has become a pivot point for a lot of this stuff, primarily due to the Sinclair connection. The naysayers, and there are plenty of them, point out the flaws in the narratives and in these theories, some times in a very unkind way. My personal belief is that the voyages were quite possible in that time and place and may have happened. But, I want to see more proof than what there is right now...which is really nothing solid, unless you can count the stone of the Westford Knight.

One group conspicuous by their absence in all this is the Templars. They are not mentioned in the Zeno narratives at all. In fact, the Templar connection theory was born some time in the late 1980s, according to the timeline I have for all this. As I mentioned in another post, by the time of the supposed Sinclair expedition, the Templars were long gone. The recent revival of interest in the Templars is responsible for their being included in nearly every conspiracy theory extant at the moment, I think including this one.

In summary: these trips were possible. Norsemen sailed as far as North America starting around the year 1000. There is no reason to believe that ships manned by sailors from the North of Scotland could not have done the same thing nearly 400 years later. The question is, where is the documentation to back it up? Right now there isn't any, at least none that is generally accepted by the scientific community. I hope that eventually it will be found but it looks like a lot of superfluous debris will have to be shoveled aside to find it.

Sorry for the length of this post.

Lin Robinson

"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982


Last edited by Lin Robinson on Thu 11 Feb, 2010 3:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Kinsington Rune Stone
Page 1 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum