[T. Hamilton]

The translation of the stone on Wikipedia (I know, I know...) reads :

"8 Geats/Goths/Gutnish/Gotlanders and 22 Norwegians/Norsemen on a? journey of exploration, from Vinland west of. We had a camp with 2 shelters, one day's journey north from this stone. We were at fishing one day, after we came home found 10 men red of blood and dead. AVM (Ave Virgo Maria[1]) rescue from evils.
[side of stone] Have 10 men by/at sea to look after our ships, 14 day journey from this island. Year 1362."

The more I think about this, the more I ask myself: Why chisel this out in the first place? It's not really a gravemarker, and it doesn't sound like a land claim (as proposed on the History Channel show), so what's the point? It was suggested on the show the 10 dead men might have died from the plague, but if they had been killed by hostiles, why would the Norsemen have taken the time to carve this stone just one day's journey from where there friends had been slaughtered? I think I would have put a bit more distance between myself and whatever was out there in that great unknown.

[Michael Zalar]

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.[/quote]

Re the Templars - point taken. Though a connection doesnt mean armed templars in the court of Henry. Simply that some had come to the area after thier fall in France, with or without some "treasure", philosophy, knowledge or whatever. Polygomy has been outlawed in Utah, but there are still strongholds of polygamists here and there.

A rune stone was found in Kingigtorssuaq in northern Greenland, variously dated to the 12th, 13th or 14th centuries - possibly as late as 1333. If the later then runic inscriptions were being created in Greenland as late as 30 years prior to the date on the Kensington Stone.
I made an inquiry to a professor at the University of Minnesota who dealt in group psychology as to whether the creation of the Kensington Rune Stone would be a reasonable thing for a group who had lost (apparently in a violent fashion) a large number of thier party. The reply was that yes, leaving somethng like this behind is perfectly reasonable.
The way the stone is laid out, suggests that the primary message was inscribed into the face of the stone in an imitation of the runic memorial stones in Scandinavia. This may have taken one to two days, according to a person who inscribes rock for a living that I interviewed. The side of the stone, which seem more of an afterthought, could have taken an additional day.
The site where the Stone was found was on a hill surrounded by a lake or marsh, "a days journey" (possibly 30 miles or so?) from where other members of the band were lost. Having done some study in military history, this seemed to me a highly defensible location. I would suggest that the group, having left the site of the disaster with some alacrity (and possibly thier boats as well) required a few days to rest and recompose themselves, scout the area, resupply and make plans.
The creation of the Rune Stone would have been done for the morale of the company, a meaningful distraction, and a means of leaving something behind.

Logic dictates an full examination of evidence in order to reach a decision. I have presented three arguments, HistoricalIPhysical, and Runic, all of which suggest the authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone. Indeed, I believe the runic argument alone should be sufficient to confirm authenticity, had the stone been found in a more 'reasonable' location (such as the East Coast). It is only the apparent (but not evidencial) Illogic of finding such an artifact in Minnesota, that stands against it.

[Michael Zalar]

[Lin Robinson]

[T. Hamilton]

[Paul Hansen]

Interesting discussion...

To me, it does not sound unreasonable to suppose that the exploration of North America has continued by Greenlanders and other Scandinavians after the events told in the Saga's. If so, then it may also be possible that they explored further inland, and left some marks such as runestones there. Whether the Kensington stone is one such artifact or not I can't say. But it does not seem completely impossible.

However, what all of this has to do with Templars or Scotland is quite beyond me....

[Jared Smith]

[Lin Robinson]

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

Last time I checked, catholic religious orders communicated and left records in latin. Catholic runes??? Any such things left behind in the Holy Land, or France where standing stones abound, just begging to be carved up by industrious Templars with nothing better to do ?? Didn't think so.
The lost scandinavian story is intriguing, though why they would wait to be so far inland to start carving does cast a serious doubt on the credibility of the story line, and it is no red herring to ask why it would just happen to be in an area where modern scandinavian immigration would end up. You kind of figure that Niagara Falls might have caught their interest along the way upstream, or that some other landfall along the way would have provided for sufficient fish and game to set some kind of settlement without the need for crossing a hostile continent in what must have been, by that time, a seriously fatigued ship or longboat. Then there is the issue of the lost mail and metal implements, weapons and such that have just never shown up although one can be pretty sure that the native tribes that would have found them would have counted these things among their most prized possessions. On a balance, the story just doesn't hold up, except in the mind of those who really wish to believe.
The basic rule is that a far fetched story needs corroborating evidence. None shown so far, so I have to cast my lot with the ''nays''.

[Josh Warren]

So this program asks us to buy the story that a 14th century Scottish member of an order that conventional wisdom knows to have been no longer in existence went to America and left records in Scandinavian runes rather than in Latin letters? I'm sorry, but that stretches my suspension of disbelief past the breaking point...

[Michael Zalar]

playing catch up...
The Templar Order as such was destroyed in the early 14th century, yes. Not all Templars will killed at that time. As i recall, the Templars in Portugal went through a name change, to the Knights of the Order of Christ but kept thier property. I have no idea how close this order was to the original knights templar, but certainly there is a connection in this case.
There has been some suggestion that some of the Templars went to Scotland - I havent investigated the truth of this, but if some settled on the lands that were to belong to Sinclair, that would be a connection.
Regardless of no real interest to me, and not evidence in any fashion regarding the Kenstington Rune Stone.


There was, I believe an iron bloom found on the Western shore of Hudson Bay that was dated to roughly the 14th century. The explaination is that it got there as a trade item, though without the ability to process I am not sure how much trade value it would have had. If there had been a voyage to Hudson Bay in the 14th century, it would provide an alternative and perhaps more reasonable explaination for the artifact.
BTW, Hudson Bay is shown on maps at least as early as 1507 (possibly earlier as a part of the northern coast of Asia), more than a century before Hudson's voyage.


Runes and Latin letters were used side by side on grave slaps in Gotland in the Middle Ages (if not elsewhere in Scandinavia, Gotland just springs to mind). Certainly if creating an inscription in stone, runes are a far easier "alphabet" to use.
There are three Latin letters on the stone "AVM". It is highly probable that this stands for Ave Maria - av:ma was often used as an abbreviation for Ave Maria in runic inscriptions.
The route most likely for the presumed explorers would have nothing to do with Niagra Falls. The group would have come in through Hudson Bay, up the Nelson River (simply following the largest river they came across) up to Lake Winnipeg, and then up the Red River. The Ottertail River (which turns into the Red River) comes within about 30 miles or so of the Rune Stone site. It is quite reasonable that the disaster noted on the stone occured on the banks of the Ottertail, roughly a 'days journey' away.
Corroborative evidence has been found in terms of axes, firesteels and the like. Swedish arcaeologist Johannes Bronsted did an examination in the 1950s of a number of these objects and concluded that, about a dozen were of likely Medieval Scandinavian origin, and half of those found under conditions that would make it unlikely to have been planted. He suggested further examination of the artifacts, some of which are on display at the Runestone Museum, but there has been no follow up (I would suggest its simply because of the connection to the "well known hoax" of the Kensington Stone.)
I have spoken with other people who at least believe they have more such corraborative evidence, but are afraid to come forward because of the ridicule they believe would be heaped on them.
I came across one story of a stone found near Lake Winnipeg with runic writing, but I was unable to find any further information on it, most likely nothing. It should be noted that due to glacial rebound, the northen end of Lake Winnipeg has risen higher in the past few centuries than the southern end, and the landing site of the presumed exploration would now be under water.

[T. Hamilton]

[Michael Zalar]

I have no doubt that the main Norse ship could have made it as far as the southern end of Lake Winnipeg - the Nelson River is, I believe the largest river that empties into Hudson Bay (and as such, for a band determined to make it inland, an obvious route). There may have been some difficulties with the size and flow of the Nelson, in fact, though a report from the 1930s (prior to hydroelectric daming of the river) suggests at that time there was only need for one portage. Who knows what it would have been like in the 14th century.
Lake Winnipeg, I believe is the 'sea' reffered to in the inscription. I have a couple of early maps (on British, on French) that specifically call it a sea.
The Red River was navigable by steamboat from near Fergus Falls, MN to Lake Winnipeg in the late 19th century, so certainly heading up river was possible. I would suggest that the expedition may have traded for, captured, or built smaller boats to continue upstream from the Lake. Or it is possible that they may have set off overland, either following the river or old Indian trails. I have read accounts that would suggest that the ten days journey from the ship to the location of the disaster (which I put around Fergus Falls) to be feasabel by either method.

[Christopher Gregg]

I found this link, which may be of interest in this discussion. I personally have no opinion, BTW.

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/kens/kens.htm

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

I've already cast my vote, but this is good fun. Now, where was Vinland ? I always thought that it was supposed to be that place we found up in Newfoundland, though I understand that the US eastern seaboard is still a possibility (Maine? Cape Cod?...)
Whatever the case, why go all the way around Labrador, circle Northern Quebec, to end up in the Hudson's bay ?
The latter day conflicts were all related to the fur trade and the great quest for a northwest passage, so that bit makes sense when the fur trade monopolies are going at each other, LeMoyne D'Iberville vs Les Anglais.... but Danes & Norwegians? I mentionned Niagara Falls as a joke, because it would make more sense that a ship out of Newfoundland , or Boston for that matter, would end up hugging the coast up the St-Laurence, rather than make its way to the iceflows along the Labrador coast. I know Scandinavians are hardy, but what's the point of suffering just for the pleasure of doing so ? South of Newfoundland lie lands with forests, game, arable land, accessible fresh waterways... north of Newfoundland, rocks, ice and lichen, hard living conditions.
Do we have any reports of these guys starting up a quest for the northwest passage two or three centuries before the boom in the fur trade?These people would end up risking their lives, so you would expect some kind of written report, or a saga or two, do these exist ?... and if they did the Hudson's Bay, Nelson and lake Winnipeg route, where the hell did they think they were going? We know that other ''first'' european explorers thought they were on their way to China when they landed in the West Indies, we know the first French hoped that the Great Lakes were a sea leading to the far East, we know the Basque and Breton fishermen knew all about the Grand Banks, and the St-Laurence whales... so where were these Danes and Norwegians headed? Who funded the expedition, and why was it from Vinland and not Norway?
In the early seventies, in Sherbrooke, Quebec, there was a report of a stone with ( get ready for this) Phoenician markings... it just died.. maybe they were unidentifiable runes??? What fun if they were, the translation might read something like ''Taking a break, tired of rowing, sure hope we get to Minnesota real soon''...

[T. Hamilton]

[Michael Zalar]

Yeah, the place where I had my website was lost when Geocities closed down last year. It was a little unexpected when I tried to reference myself and it wasnt there anymore.

There is a book that was purportedly written about the expedition called the "Inventio Fortunate" - unfortunately the work has been lost, though it is reference several times in the Medieval/Renaissance periods, Columbus mentions it, as well as Mercator and Dee.
The book was supposedly written by one of those who survived (I expect from my research that the main body did not return, and the survivors were the ten men left with the ship).

A second book also makes mention of the voyage, the Itinerum of Jacob Cnoyen. While this book is also lost, an extensive quotation regarding the voyage does come down to us in a letter from Gerard Mercator to Dr John Dee. Cnoyen either read the Inventio or spoke with one of the returning crew members. The expedition travelled to Greenland - Cnoyen believes that the inahbitants were lost members of an ancient England expedition, quoting a different book - about 1360, and returned in 1364.
Cnoyen has the trip going to the north pole, however the description he leaves, I believe describes Baffin Bay with some accuracy - he notes for instance that there are four strong currents pouring into the area that make it difficult to leave. Baffin Bay has similar currents two down from the North, one up the west coast of Greenland, and the current through the Hudson Straight which, while not pouring directly into Baffin Bay, does cause difficulty with travel going west. The Greenlanders needed to cross Baffin Bay to escape on a current flowing down its west side into the Atlantic.
Kristen Seaver, in works unrealted to the Kensington Stone, notes a point on the southern end of Baffin Island which seems to correspond to a description in Cnoyen. Cnoyen notes that the expedition went west from this point, but does not give a descripton of what was found (or at least it is not noted in the Mercator letter).

Maps from the 16th century using The Inventio Fortunate as a guide, show this mistaken north polar sea. They also show Hudson Bay. There is no known exploration of the bay prior to 1611.
There are of course other explainations to this mystery (and yes cartogrphic historians do consider it a mystery). James Enterline suggests that Greenlanders gathered this information from the Inuit, and then transmitted it back to the Scandinavian homelands. However the Hudson Bay mapping does seem to have a connection with the maps misrepresenting the expedition from the 1360s misrepresenting the Polar Sea.

Regardless the main point is not to prove an expedition into Hudson Bay in 1362, but rather to point out that there was and expedition at that time, that it was written about (though not in the sagas, but at least in two seperate books), and that it did go beyond Greenland.

As to why, well Cnoyen refers to Greenland as being very close to the Great Khan's land - evidently assuming that Greenland was close to Asia. That error of distance would be repeated 130 years after the inscribed date - perhaps Columbus based some of his calculations on read of this trip.
The riches of the orient were certainly known even in Scandinavia in the 14th century. For a person, or several people, to furnish an expedition with this possibility in mind should not be considered unreasonable. One bit of evidence that such a party may have used is that Marco Polo wrote of the Khan having white gyrfalcons which came from an island in the north. However, the Scandinavians knew that white gyrfalcons came from Greenland (they were highly prized). The obvious connection would be that the source of the Khans gyrfalcons was likely be relatively close to Greenland.