See other History Articles
Title: Scandinavian runestone
Source:
kensingtonrunestone.com
URL Source: http://www.kensingtonrunestone.com/
Published: Mar 29, 2009
Author: Scott Wolter
Post Date: 2009-03-29 23:16:08 by TwentyTwelve
Keywords: Scandinavian runestone, 1362, Pre Columbus
Views: 131
Comments: 8
Hoax or history? On November 8, 1898, a Swedish immigrant farmer, Olof Ohman, and his ten-year-old son say they found a Scandinavian runestone, dated 1362, wedged in the roots of a tree in rural Minnesota. Ever since 1898, when Olof Ohman, a Swedish immigrant working his fields in what is now Douglas County, MN, found the 202-lb., mysteriously engraved stone tangled in the roots of an uprooted tree, controversy has raged over the artifact’s authenticity. The stone, dated 1362, soon proved how difficult the search for the truth can be—and raised eyebrows over the possibility that North European explorers predated Columbus in America. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#2. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
Thanks for the ping. Yes, there are a lot of anomalies that point at many cultures visiting North America in antiquity. One of the more recent discoveries is Kennewick Man. Discovered in Southeastern Washington State Kennewick Man is Caucasian not Mongol (a lot of Indian ancestors appear to have been Mongols). Kennewick Man is at least 10,000 years old. Needless to say that predates Columbus by a few years. The Great Lakes Copper Mines are another mystery pointing toward extensive pre-Columbian contacts with ancient Europe or Mesopotamia. While the Copper Mines (Isle Royale, Lake Superior) have been attributed to Amerinds as an attempt to explain it away, but the mines are thousands of years old and Amerinds were not known to mine copper - particularly in the large quantities that were mined i.e., boat loads - literally. In our PC don't think outside the box academia to mention this is to court being called racist, or "putting Indians down" or some other such nonsense. As well the Mandan Indian Tribe of Louisiana when first contacted by European Settlers and Traders had natural REDHEADS. There are other anomalies - things which do not fit the accepted academic viewpoint and so are thus sidestepped and avoided because they don't conform to what the already written books say. "Evidence be damned! That's the way it was cuz the Perfessor sez so."
That is the problem. Sadly that kind of thinking is actually more racist than searching for the truth. The monument called the Great Zimbabwe was attributed to whites because it was believed that black were incapable. I see no difference between "it must have come from whites" and "it must have come from Amerinds." Attributing anything solely based on race is by its very nature racist.
Agreed, and without reservation.
There are no replies to Comment # 4. End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Original_Intent (#2)
In our PC don't think outside the box academia to mention this is to court being called racist, or "putting Indians down" or some other such nonsense.
#4. To: farmfriend (#3)
Attributing anything solely based on race is by its very nature racist.
Replies to Comment # 4.