Scott Wolter Blogs "Vikings in America," Reveals Show Left Out Key Information to Bolster Its Case

12/24/2013

As I’m sure many of you already know, Scott Wolter has posted on his personal blog a further discussion of his “findings” about Viking runic artifacts on America. He posted this material on Sunday, and there are relatively few major revelations in it. However, Wolter did provide an important detail about the attempted “translation” of Nancy Millwood’s North Carolina rune stone that accidentally reveals how America Unearthed is purposely manipulating even their own “findings” to create innuendo rather than fact, more propaganda than fair presentation.

You will recall that the show (episode S02E04) made a big deal about archaeologist Michael Arbuthnot sending an image of the North Carolina stone, allegedly found by Nancy Millwood in 1971, to a colleague who is an expert in runes so it could be translated. A throwaway line at the end of the show claimed that the “translation” was “inconclusive” but that Wolter still felt it was genuine. Here are the exact words used on the show:

The stone Nancy found has similar runes [to the Heavener Rune Stone] […] Even though L’Anse aux Meadows is the only universally-accepted Viking settlement in North America, I believe they made it further south, to the United States. Mike did get me a translation for Nancy Millwood’s rune stone, but it was inconclusive. Even so, I believe it needs to be taken seriously. In fact, I believe many rune stones found across the United States make up the final, unwritten chapter of the Viking sagas.

Let’s leave aside the antecedent trouble with which “it” needs to be taken seriously. (Read literally, it would be the translation, not the stone.) It turns out that these lines, so carefully written to obscure Wolter’s own beliefs, hide findings that are much more damaging to the case the producers of America Unearthed tried to build, and also serve to purposely misrepresent to the viewer Wolter’s own “findings” about the stone while still giving Wolter a way of saying that he never actually said what the words clearly imply.

Anyone watching the episode would believe, given the context, that Wolter believes Millwood’s rune stone to be ancient, to have the same runes as the Heavener Rune Stone that he had already declared Viking, and to be an “unwritten chapter” of the Vinland saga. All of this is false, produced by verbal sleight of hand to fool the viewer. And Wolter tells us this himself!

On his blog, Wolter writes that he is not actually privy to the some of the “investigations” carried out in his name:

Nancy Millwood's stone is almost certainly genuine, but I don't think it's Viking in age. I suspect it's more likely medieval, probably carved sometime between 1200-1500 A.D. It reminds me of the Kensington and Spirit Pond rune Stones as it is filled with strange characters and numerous dotted runes. Like those inscriptions, the Millwood Rune Stone doesn't fit the standard runic traditions of Scandinavia, so understandably their translation was inconclusive. I was told that whoever tried to translate it (I still do not know who it was) eventually punted and said, "...it was probably modern." Why couldn't they have just said, "I don't know" and left it at that? That's OK too.

Yeah, why would an expert draw a reasonable conclusion based on knowledge and experience? One should never use words like “probably” and instead admit ignorance and do nothing more... Oh, wait: Scott Wolter himself draws exactly the same kinds conclusions in this episode, only without the knowledge or experience to support the conclusions.

Note the passive voice construction at the end. Compare this to the fanciful “translation” of equally-nonsensical runes he solicited his friend Mike Carr to produce in S01E02. This year, apparently after criticism over the bad rune translation last year, the show takes pains to find an expert Scott Wolter does not know and then ignores the expert. This, I guess, is progress.

So, in denigrating the work of an actual runic expert (assuming we can trust archaeologist Michael Arbuthnot’s spoken testimony in the episode), Wolter accidentally reveals that the show mislead viewers about the expert’s findings and that Wolter did not take an active role in soliciting or utilizing the work of the unnamed linguist. Also note that Wolter has no trouble with all of the runic inscriptions found in America being “non-standard” even though they were supposedly carved by standard-issue Norse who came from areas where “standard” runes were being used.

It should probably go without saying that there is no evidence of medieval Scandinavians in North Carolina, or any medieval Europeans at all. More damaging is the fact that the Vinland sagas (Erik the Red’s Saga and The Greenlander Saga) were composed in the 1200s, with the surviving versions from the 1300s and 1400s with none of the authors implying at all that there was any continued contact with North America, something we would expect to see should there have been a real “land claim.”

We learn directly from Wolter himself that the unnamed expert concluded that the runes were most likely a modern hoax because they were non-standard and did not form words or phrases that could be coherently translated. The show, speaking with Wolter’s narration, purposely misrepresents this conclusion and leads viewers to believe there was more doubt about the authenticity of the inscription than the actual expert they consulted believes by eliding his or her findings under the generic term “inconclusive.” There is a big difference between “inconclusive” and “probably modern.”

Wolter and the producers also allowed viewers to come away with the impression that the stone was somehow tied to the Vinland voyages described in the show (c. 1000 CE) when Wolter himself does not support the implied conclusion. The wording is very careful, probably at Wolter’s insistence, so it never says the stone is Viking in age; in merely implies it by sandwiching it between two alleged Viking artifacts and never specifying Wolter’s real beliefs about its date. This is propaganda, not documentary filmmaking.

Wolter previously wrote via email to a viewer who complained about the New World Order episode (S02E02) that the producers had chosen the topic, not him. I find it interesting that in four episodes Wolter has twice said, intentionally or not, that he is simply voicing ideas from Maria and Andy Awes, the show’s production team, that sometimes at odds with his own (equally fantastic) views.

So what are we to make of it when the show’s host admits that the show leaves out information that contradicts their case, and that the show’s conclusions are massaged to stay on message?

I guess I should just get out of the criticism business and instead put what Wolter says on America Unearthed in one column and what he says in his blog in a second column and let the manipulations speak for themselves.

57 Comments

Harry

12/24/2013 06:43:02 am

I think you should make it clearer for Steve Sinclair and his ilk: It is hypocritical of Wolter to criticize the unnamed rune expert for saying that the Millwood Stone "was probably modern" after saying himself that "it was probably carved sometime between 1200-1500 A.D.," a conclusion for which he offers no evidence. I would add that,. even assuming that his dating is correct, and given that Wolter admits that it "doesn't fit the runic traditions of Scandinavia," the "runes" on the stone might be symbols superficially resembling runes created by a native American culture that existed at that time and location. I don't know whether that is the case or not, but neither does Wolter.

12/24/2013 06:46:33 am

It just occurred to me that "ilk" is a Scottish term that means "those of the same name." Perhaps I should clarify that I used the term to refer to other fans of Scott Wolter and not to members of the Sinclair family.

Gunn Sinclair link

12/24/2013 07:35:22 am

Thank you Harry, that means a lot to me.

Clearly, there needs to be more emphasis on explaining what can and cannot be done by Wolter. I know there are state-of-the-art methods of examining some of these artifacts that aren't being discussed. I recommend a more scientific, detailed explanation of possible stone dating methods.

These should be applied in a manner that would make his findings more conclusive in the minds of the audience. He desires to come across as an expert in studying and attempting to age these objects, so I think it would be good to explain things better.

Scott has a pretty good on-TV presence, and his helpers should magnify this with revealing more and better professional methodology. He can explain his conclusions better, helping critics believe he knows what he's doing.

I think he knows what he's doing, and he's a rare expert in his field, but he needs to do a better job of convincing others of this. He can do it, in my opinion. He can bring a stronger element of professionalism to the shows. He can do it.

I believe he'll eventually pull himself out of this temporary quagmire. Maybe he'll end up finding something of substance right here in MN, in his backyard, where he gets better support than on this blog. There are still things to find and explain. A lot of locals here know he's a huge advocate for the authenticity of the KRS, and there are a lot of believers in both Wolter and the KRS. Both are a force to be reckoned with.

12/24/2013 08:38:36 am

Gunn,

I suspect that you give Wolter more credit than he deserves, but I have no problem with his proving me wrong. Demonstrating that he used a scientifically verifiable method of dating the carvings, either on the show or in his blog (preferably the former) would be a help. However, in the particular case of the Millwood Stone, he has, as I point out, a second problem: the mere fact that someone carves symbols into the Stone does not mean that is even "probably" the case that the symbols are runes or that the carvers were European. Until someone demonstrates that a relic found in America is both pre-Columbian and brought from Europe/connected to European culture, it is not evidence for pre-Columbian European visitation. Am I wrong?

Gunn link

12/24/2013 08:54:30 am

I just wanted to make the point, again, as has someone else before did on this blog, that the party of men making up the KRS expedition knew exactly where they were, starting from far west of Vinland, to the number of days travel (consequently, distance) to the area (14), most likely from Duluth, right down to one day's travel south to Runestone Hill from where the massacre site is located, where the men were camped.

I would like to point out too, in conjunction with this observation of KRS information, that my proposed farthest west-sailing point, Duluth, is a point in exact line with what I believe to be the land-claiming stonehole cluster along the Whetstone River in SD, and with Runestone Hill. This is no accident. I believe Scandinavians, probably mostly Swedes, shot a compass line between Duluth and Wilmot, SD, with the location of the KRS being in the direct line for some obscure reason.

This makes me believe that the stoneholes probably predate the KRS party somewhat...and that the men were merely quickly placing a memorial stone to their fallen comrades, not in any way claiming land there themselves. This is conjecture based on facts and logic. In other words, too, the men would have been in a hurry to get going, and I don't think they would've taken the time to make all the stoneholes at Runestone Hill, given the noise and danger of such a proposition. However, I postulate that they thought someone might be returning there (because of the other purpose of the stoneholes...land claiming) in the future and thereby might find the memorial stone--not buried.

Gunn

12/24/2013 09:02:49 am

Yes, a quality relic must have quality provenance. In the case of the KRS, it has some provenance, just not the kind archaeologists require...and justifiably so. But it does have a degree of background that can and should be appreciated on face value, given the totality of circumstances. There are too many people throwing stones without being willing to look further into the whole matter. There are many, many layers to this onion, which almost seems to make some people tear-up in consternation.

12/24/2013 09:44:12 am

The KRS, at least, has identifiable runes and a date. If it is genuine (and originally laid where it was found), then it would be very good evidence of a pre-Columbian Scandinavian expedition to Minnesota. My objection is to the Millwood Stone which Wolter has yet to show is evidence of anything.

Discovery of America

12/24/2013 11:35:54 pm

Nobody has produced any provenance for the KSR to date

12/25/2013 12:23:02 am

"No contemporary evidence relating to the Kensington stone is known from the time of its discovery in November, 1898, until January 1, 1899. No letter or diary record of it, written within a few days or weeks after the discovery, has come to light. The stone was unearthed by laymen, not archaeologists. The details of the find were not at the time recorded in a scholar's notebook. No report was sent to any newspaper in November or December, 1898, as far as is known, or to the Minnesota Historical Society. No one seems to have photographed the stone at the site where it was found or in the Ohman yard or at the bank or store in Kensington. The first known letter written about the stone bears the date January 1, 1899, and the first known mention of it in print is dated January 14, 1899. No one has offered a satisfactory explanation of this contemporary silence of two months, which is difficult to understand on any hypothesis." (Blegen, 1968)

12/25/2013 12:32:23 am

"The Kensington Stone, with its ludicrous parody of a Swedish runic inscription, emerged on cue in the 1890s in one of the most Scandinavian states of the USA, soon after public interest had been whetted by an epic voyage from Norway to America in a replica of the celebrated Gokstad ship." (Magnusson, 1976)

J.A. Dickey

12/25/2013 06:14:52 am

We when trying to peg runes visually have to go by the extant
runes that are thought to be authentic of a similar age to each
other. i'm assuming its not often that Pagan Vikings intermingle
Latin letters inside their runes, so at the very least a rune that
has mixed signals is more contemporary to the Great Schism
and not Arthur or Charlemagne. If we assume the mid-1300s is
lethal for any two-way trade between N.A + Europe, and that the
Black Death is half the reason Greenland's colony withered away
to nothing, a later rune message has higher odds of being in the
1200s or 1400s if we are looking at a style that is previous and prior to the printing press. Etchings and movable type replaced
woodblock printed pages, and I am not an expert on all the early
books printed in Scandanavia. The 1700s were the era of all the
grand encyclopedias, and to find early etched versions of the very
ancient runes compounds this. Literacy varied greatly in the past,
especially if only 10% of the population in previous centuries had
any degree of an education, and only 5% were educated better than
grade school. Most short inscriptions look like a scrawl done on
stone. Gunn has made a telling point, the KRS has a long message
and in a manner where the runes are repeated rather consistantly...
Experts for the longest time could not read Minoan B script becuz
there was not enough examples of it. If the KRS is the 1830s then
the grove of poplar trees had it looking centuries earlier. If it is way
more contemporary to A. Conan Doyle's code of the Dancing Men,
then its a hoax, but if the family was honest, it was not THEIR own
hoax on the world. Think 30 years before or after Lewis & Clark and
keep in mind the French were fur traders and had forts spaced out
from each other on two mighty rivers. I think the family has been honest about how it was found. I'm assuming it was carved after
the 1200s and before 1850. If the date on the KRS is correct, then
it is a stone from that exact year or even a much later replica of an earlier stone. The family has given it a loose provenance but the full
inscription says much to an expert. Like the Dare stones, the N.C
stone is shorter and looking like a puzzle. If in the 1500s or 1600s
a history book had illustrations of pagan artifacts found in Denmark
etc, a clever person then could utilize an older style but with a more
modern take. This is the Johnny Appleseed question, we know that
apples sprang up in a East to West pattern, so could wagons move
ancient runes? My family has a smooth stone ax that my immigrant grandfather took from the family farm in Ireland, were we to drop it
on the farm here, it would have a misplaced look. As people travel,
they can leave things behind. If at all genuine the KRS is a riddle...

12/25/2013 06:57:47 am

I am sure I could create "a long message
and in a manner where the runes are repeated rather consistently" on a centuries-old piece of stone

12/25/2013 07:41:41 am

having a carving showing age to a naked eyeball is easy for
an expert art forger, but could you pull off an ancient rune
message on an ancient looking stone that could fool a very
good microscope? i remember a history textbook of mine
that had Zeus or Poseidon holding a spear, it was thought to
be an ancient bronze. the Auld God was in full glory on its
cover. the bronze was later found out to be quite modern and
not from the Golden Age of Ancient Greece!!!! Gunn is on
the level with us. the KRS is a complex enigma on all levels.

12/26/2013 12:19:04 am

Gunn strikes me as a sincere and relatively reasonable guy who wants to believe in the KRS and in Scott Wolter. Whether or not the KRS is genuine is an issue to be judged by people with the relevant expertise and dispassion to do so. As I understand it, the weight of such opinion is against the KRS. So be it.

Even if the KRS proves to be genuine, Wolter has, in my opinion, completely discredited himself by his willingness to jump to conclusions and his willingness to accept problematic "evidence" for those conclusions at face value and without doing a proper investigation. I cite the Millwood Stone because it is emblematic of those tendencies.

I suppose it is possible, as Gunn believes, that Wolter has more of a basis for his conclusions and conjectures than he lets on, but the burden should be on him to reveal it and I very much doubt it. Come on, Scott, I dare you to prove me wrong!

Clint Knapp

12/24/2013 07:54:21 am

Maybe we'll all get lucky and Scott Wolter will dig the show's grave himself with these repeated contradictions of the final product. Or they'll just get a new host, and we'll be stuck with someone worse. Robert Shoch, maybe?

To his credit, regardless what he believes otherwise, it is nice to see some sort of transparency. Now, if we could get the actual report of the translation effort and the expert's name...

12/24/2013 02:45:41 pm

SW is again sadly fighting the idea that maybe the runes
were carved after the year 1500 or 1600 as he pursues
all the mythic Vikings who once traveled greatly & far.
is there any way a carbon copy of a much older stone
was made? in colonial N.E. graveyards if the inscriptions
then fade or vandalism happens, a brand new memorial
replaces the older one. the KRS is internally coherent.

Varika

12/24/2013 03:34:15 pm

On the specific stone mentioned in the show, no. I'm not a runic expert but I have some familiarity as an artist with the way runestones are supposed to look. The biggest thing is that no authentic stone has word spacing the way the one shown in the show has. I even went online to look at photos of stones, and no. None. Even the KRS doesn't have word spacing the way that one does.

12/24/2013 11:37:41 pm

Asians discovered America millennia before the Vikings, and it's not that important a subject matter

12/25/2013 06:29:59 am

I feel that the First People of Australia and N.Z about 50,000 years
ago could have sailed from there to the far tip of South America by
hugging the sheet ice of the South Pole, and I might even humour
the idea that the Solutreans were told about the Gulf Stream by the
Native Americans who did a likewise in the Atlantic via that route!!!
I think there were ten routes taken over 200,000 years and not just
simply the Bering Sea route opening up periodically and regularly...

12/26/2013 07:49:33 am

DoA, J.A. Dickey, what does Asian discovery of America have to do with the authenticity of the runestone in the episode? Yes, Native Americans are generally Asiatic in genetic descent. Yes, there were probably multiple routes taken to get to the Americas over the years. None of that is pertinent to "is that runestone possibly a copy of an older one?"

12/25/2013 05:41:18 am

Seriously, SW should have the show hire about five experts
with contradictory takes on the new N.C runes and then try
for the best explanation. if SW is grounded in Earth Science
and not Physics, Chemistry or Anthropology, then Math or
Linguistics is an academic leap for him. George Washington
once tried to riddle out mammoth and mastodon ivory as well
as exotic tales. Are we of the 21st Century truly brighter even
if we are well educated? Scott Wolter has his level of expertise
and then there are the people he + H2 can happily hire now!!!

12/26/2013 06:00:15 am

I agree, further expertise is what is needed. The subject matter at hand is too important to just give a flippant, cursory look. Outcomes need to be clearer. The process of investigation needs to be strictly professional, and it needs to slow down at the point of drawing conclusions. I see a continuing problem unless more science is introduced into the show.

I wish there would be a future focus on exactly how the professionals can date stone carvings and such. There must be plenty of examples of stone aging and dating, gravestones, etc. As we saw with the KRS, the main issue was to put the aging past a modern date, not so much trying to guess an exact date. Wolter had determined that the KRS must be genuine, first of all, I think, based on it at least being old enough to put it well past the Scandinavian 1800's immigration period. Then he began noticing other things.

It used to be that there were two kinds of knowledge: knowledge to be gained firsthand, and then knowing where to find additional, specialized knowledge. Now-a-days, the two seem to be combining, which is great. With enough research into detailed information now at hand on the internet, we can all better know what to expect of "those in the know."

As an aside...from my own personal travels and research, I have come to believe that a good location for finding something of medieval European (Swedish) background, might be near the tiny little hamlet of Wilmot, SD. A lighted sign is going off and on in my mind, to the left, west, as I sleep away the winter. Why is this specific "stonehole heaven" area exactly in line with Duluth and Kensington? Could it be a coincidence?

I googled up a map again, and sure enough, it is unmistakable. Yes, it could be a coincidence, but what are the odds of this occurring? The main two areas of "evidences" (Whetstone River and Kensington/w KRS) are in direct line with Duluth. On my website, above, one can see a carved, Norse ship, complete with snake heads. This carving is very old and someone should make an attempt to date it, along with the bear carving...both found on a peninsula (Copper Harbor) in Lake Superior, on the way to and not far from Duluth.

I'm thinking there was probably a grid or mapping pattern these early Scandinavians were familiar with. Once again, these people were not lost...they knew exactly where they were--out in the EXACT MIDDLE of nowhere. (With due apologies to the locals.)

Dave Mowers

12/26/2013 11:25:05 am

The problem Scott and you will have convincing others will lie in the relative recent dating of these finds and the assumption that no other explanation can exist beyond your alleged proofs. Proofs which are mostly predicated on associative values within possible ranges and things that commonly fall to the wayside, routinely being found to hold no actual factual value in science. I think you guys should talked about all the ways in which your deductions are wrong or could be found to be and then counter with your tenuous assertions so that people can only then make up their minds.

Those that decide you are right will then be true believers no?

Any educated child could have loved Viking ships and with time, talent and patience carved one on a rock at his grandfather's farm.

1/2/2014 02:00:57 pm

"Why is this specific "stonehole heaven" area exactly in line with Duluth and Kensington?"

As a footnote: it was shortly after the above post about the blinking light "Wilmot" in my mind's eye that I came to realize that the specific stonehole heaven area "is the main reason" for the line running between Wilmot and Duluth. Runestone Hill is merely a geographical mapping knoll on the main compass line. The main importance is the compass line running between Duluth and Wilmot.

Here it is, then: Wilmot and the entire Whetstone River (now dubbed New Gogaland) represented the convergence spot for three main river-ways far inland: Gulf/Mississippi River, St. Lawrence Seaway and Hudson Bay. All can be traced by water-ways inland, ending and converging near New Gotaland. (They may not have known about the Mississippi River going to the Gulf, still leaving two main water-ways.)

So now we know why the stonehole clusters and accompanying carvings are in far SE South Dakota, and we now know why the KRS was deposited on Runestone Hill...which was because others knowing of the mapped knoll might be returning some day and find the memorial stone.

Truth seeking? This conclusion allows for the message of the KRS to remain pure, undiluted and intact.

But, in my opinion, "New Gotaland" is the better place to look for further medieval Scandinavian evidences.

Thank you everyone for your patience. I feel that my OCD-yearnings are for the time-being satisfied with positive new leads, to be explored next spring, God willing. - Gunn

12/26/2013 07:55:36 am

That would require finding experts to TAKE contradictory stances on the stone, and they wouldn't because the things is way too obviously a fake. You could probably find contradictory stances for the KRS, but that one from NC is just so obviously a fake. I doubt it even dates back to the 70s, personally; I would not be at all surprised to find out that it was faked for the purposes of getting onto the show. ....just to be clear, I'm not making that accusation, it just wouldn't surprise me. If people will go onto the Maury Povitch show or Wipeout, or fake Bigfoot footprints to get onto some Sasquatch show variant, someone out there would be willing to fake a runestone to try and get onto America Unearthed. It's inevitable that attempts have been made, at least; whether this was one or not, I can't say, but the runestone was absolutely fake.

12/26/2013 09:52:09 am

Varika, the blogsite PatagonianMonsters has a way cool
route to the tip of S.A and yes... this is tangential to things
Viking and very A.D yet Pagan quite often! Dare i ask if the
N.C runes and the Dare stones came from the same pair
of human hands? Why stick to one auld look, why not be
creative and leave behind a puzzle for the foolish? There
are clever hoaxers who can fake a weathered look. There
are the reasons why PBS's Antiques Roadshow has to be
quite careful. Lets say its 50/50 the KRS is very honest
but its 80% likely the N.C runes are very deceptuve & bold.

12/26/2013 10:00:11 am

I am more of an optimist. if the N.C inscription mixes
styles + time-periods, ought this to increase the odds
that three experts can be found with totally different
translations? this then as two more of 'em added to
the total mix so as to pick sides! it might be a learning
curve episode... they even could have fans voting on
the better explanation on their website very happily!!!

12/27/2013 08:45:02 am

An earlier thread here has a direct link to Scott Wolter's blog at
scottwolteranswers.blogspot.com and in it I had wondered if he'd
be infrequent with his replies. To his credit, he has neat dialogue
going on with RLewis where he is more open about his decisions and his reasons. Are they soon to turn the episode tacitly into a
two-parter if they provide a rough & ready translation from experts?

http://scottwolteranswers.blogspot.com/2013/12/america-unearthed-vikings-in-america.html#comment-form

RLewis December 27, 2013 at 7:37 AM
Thank you for your reply. Can you tell me who the expert was that looked at the Millwood stone (or the institution they worked for)? It's not that I don't believe you (I do) but I would like to ask them directly why they thought the inscription was modern. Also, can you shed any light on the other two stones that were shown in the photographs (or is that for a future episode :)?

Scott Wolter December 27, 2013 at 8:22 AM
The production company found somebody to try and translate it, but never told me who it was. They did that on purpose and when whoever couldn't translate it, it was left at that. I have no interest in contacting them because there isn't a scholar in the world who will understand an inscription with this many dotted runes and "odd" characters. It fits no established runic tradition so they punt.

During my five years of working with both American and Scandinavian runologists and linguists I learned enough to become extremely dangerous. Many characters they insisted for over a century never existed showed up in early 2004 in the Larsson Papers, proving they didn't know as much as they thought. Of course, to cover themselves they claimed the Larsson Papers, which are clearly Masonic, proved that an immigrant could have brought them to Minnesota, blah, blah, blah...

the fact is if they existed in the 1880s then they existed before that, apparently several centuries before preserved within a secret society.

What I witnessed was an absolute refusal by scholars, at all costs, to even consider the possibility of a pre-Columbian origin. When you combine the contents within the inscription with the geological evidence that eliminates the possibility of a late 19th century origin you now are on the right track.

You must be talking about the other two inscriptions found near the Heavener Rune Stone, the Poteau and Shawnee Rune Stones. I have looked at these stones, but since they are carved into similar quartz-rich sandstone without a properly documented provenance there isn't much I can do. They contain similar runes at the Heavener and likely date to the same period if they are old.

The Other J.

12/26/2013 09:57:23 am

I'm not even sure what an inconclusive translation would me. Maybe if the text (stone) was incomplete the translation could be inconclusive, but if the entirety of the text is present, the translation either conveys linguistic content or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then that suggests a lack of knowledge on the part of the person attempting to use that language -- which suggests it wasn't made by actual Norse explorers, who would have been fluent in the language.

12/26/2013 10:08:17 am

Scott Wolter glommed onto Augustus Caesar's M that is not Arab
and yes, the spacing of the runes as Varika pointed out has us all
thinking hoax or fake or very late in the day well long after Mallory's
bold Plantagenet book about a very Noble Arthur and his passing!!!
If those N.C runes are closer to JFK's Camelot & not Arthur's one...

Matt Mc

12/27/2013 01:49:56 am

Here is another one from his blog:

AnonymousDecember 20, 2013 at 5:42 AM

Are you aware that you are misusing the word Acheoastronomy? Are you going to stop using it incorrectly?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/archeoastronomy

Scott WolterDecember 22, 2013 at 8:03 AM

If you are referring to the Georgia Guide Stones you are technically correct. However, we deemed it appropriate given our audience is becoming aware of this term and its use by ancient, and not so ancient cultures.

Titus pullo

12/27/2013 10:14:56 am

Scot wolter responded to my questions on the great copper heist episode. See his blog. He had an interesting take on my questions.

12/27/2013 10:23:13 am

See scottwolteranswers.blogspot.com

3rd comment

Jason Colavito link

12/27/2013 10:36:55 am

I'll give him this: Claiming that archaeologists say Native Americans didn't use much of the copper mined in America takes guts, especially since he's getting that from 1960s falsehoods disproved decades ago. The copper was traded across America and was used in many and varied ways.

12/27/2013 10:41:08 am

Interesting how much he repeats "the lack of evidence says nothing'. Great excuse there, with that logic he never needs supporting evidence only a theory.

Also notice how he hinted that a future episode of AU will be about early Mormon history in America, I wonder if he will interview Frank Joseph on that episode?

12/27/2013 10:45:52 am

I think that even H2 will draw the line at a convicted Neo-Nazi sex offender. I'd guess they'd probably be a bit queasy about investigating Mormonism, too.

Wolter really seems to think that a lack of evidence makes room for any possibility. Does that mean that the lack of evidence for a Native American takeover of medieval Europe confirms that the Aztecs were secretly running the Vatican? You can't prove it wrong, so it has to be true!

And of course the two most famous of all such claims: There is no evidence of either Atlantis or ancient astronauts, so they have to be true, too. Scott Wolter said so!

Sometimes one's mind can be so far open that one's brain falls out.

Joe

12/27/2013 11:03:12 am

There are two parts of his response that seemed interesting to me. "The fact is we don't have any European examples of comparable runic inscriptions that correspond with the Kensington, Spirit Pond, Narragansett and Millwood Rune Stones. This should not be a surprise as the parties who carved them operated in extreme secrecy" He admits that there is no comparable evidence on these inscriptions but then covers himself by explaining they were done in secrecy. He is using this idea so any nonsensical rune stone is in "secret code" and helps contribute to the overall conspiracy.

Also an earlier comment "During my five years of working with both American and Scandinavian runologists and linguists I learned enough to become extremely dangerous." I am not sure how learning some basic understanding of runes or norse linguistics would make someone dangerous. This seems to be a ridiculous comment that helps feed back the idea that academics are scared of his research and his "unique" knowledge but when anyone asks about the translations he himself is unable to provide any information.

At this point it seems to me that it is more important to inflate the theory and his ego at times, even though any evidence that he presents on the show tends to show do not corroborate his ideas.

12/27/2013 11:41:33 am

His claim rests on the idea that runes are somehow more mysterious than other languages. Imagine if I said that in my six years of Latin training I gained enough knowledge of Latin to be "dangerous" to Classical scholars. You'd laugh at how silly that sounded. It shouldn't be different just because the alphabet is less familiar to audiences.

12/27/2013 12:48:01 pm

There is a little something to the idea of runes being "magical," or at least have a little more going on than typical letters (although I've never seen Wolter articulate this). A rune can stand for a sound, like our letters do, and also stand for a concept, like a hieroglyph. So when you spell something out in a rune, the collection of runes together may make a word, or tell a story -- the deeper narrative is encoded in the runes.

That's not really magical, per se, and I don't have any ready examples; I'm reaching back a few years to my Anglo-Saxon classes where we spent a little time talking about this, and the prof's favorite example was of runes for "health" etched onto a stick that would then be used to stir beer.

But I think without knowing the cultural context in which some runes were carved, it'd be hard to really be sure of what the deeper story of some runes might be.

Will

12/28/2013 01:10:13 am

At the risk of being "dangerous" with my background of taking one formal logic class at a community college 10 years ago, I must ask this:

Wolter states there are no comparables to determine the authenticity of the runes. Isn't it more likely that until new evidence comes to light that this stone is a one off hoax?

Plus who carves something into stone they want to keep secret? Talk about the absolute longest lasting way to preserve something you'd onto want anyone to find out about.

12/28/2013 01:28:35 am

Re Scott Wolter's comment that he learned enough about runes to be "dangerous":

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

Alexander Pope

12/28/2013 04:50:19 am

Will --

You're on the side of probability with the stone being a hoax (and one article I saw on the Vineyard Gazette has an eyewitness claiming he saw a Norwegian cook from a ship making the stone). But the lack of disconfirming evidence in cases like these leave open that "what if?" loophole that true believers will tend to jump through.

Jason has been reviewing some shows from Discover America over the holidays. I saw one of their monster shows recently, and in a bit about the Dover Demon, a woman who claims to have seen it said that maybe no evidence has been found that the demon actually existed, but no evidence has been found to prove it DOESN'T exist, so she's a believer.

Fine. There's no evidence a tiny magical wombat DOESN'T live in my closet, but that doesn't prove there's a marsupial in my place. There's a joke about something like this, where a guy always snaps his fingers when he walks. When his friend asks "why are you doing that?" the guy says "It keeps the tigers away." His friend says "But there aren't any tigers around here for hundreds of miles; the nearest tigers are in zoos." And the guy responds "You see? It's working!"

-----

The graph from the article: But perhaps the most damning report of the authenticity of the rune stone came on August 31, 1954, when the Gazette reported that "over the past weekend Capt. Martin Dahl said he saw a Norwegian cook chisel the message into the rock in 1913."

The link: http://mvgazette.com/news/2007/06/08/revisitng-viking-myth-island-nomans-expedition-planned?k=vg52bf0d39663f6&r=1

12/28/2013 04:03:09 am

I'm guessing that the more ancient "from across the ocean" mining of copper was accomplished in a different manner than how the Native Americans mined it. I question how any differences in technology would have made a significant difference. How was the copper mined...by significantly different methods?

Of course, much evidence was mined over, so there are probably few clues. Long ago, I read about how Native Americans would build fires on the copper and then dash it with cold water, causing fractures. I would like to know more about the copper travelling away from the Lake Superior area, whether by ancient seamen, or by a network of Native American trade, or both. Does the guessed amount of copper mined relate correctly to the proposed disbursement through trade? Or is this unrealistic? Does actual evidence support the idea that nearly all of the copper was mined by local Natives and sent outward throughout the Americas? Testing is in order.

Just as the iron objects at the KRS museum in Alexandria, MN can cheaply and easily be tested for exact mineral composition, so can any of these copper artifacts from around the Americas be tested to see if in fact the copper originated from the Lake Superior Area. But, we want to deal with significant amounts of copper being located away from the mining sites. Is there evidence to support the notion that no copper went overseas?

As an aside, someone questions, way above, whether or not the KRS was moved a considerable distance after carving. I would like to note that this is yet one more attempt to add to the message of the runestone. The newest and best translation describes Runestone Hill as a peninsula-island. I have spent hour upon hour at the site, and the site is in fact, unquestionably, a peninsula-island. It is, in fact, a moat-like setting. One can easily imagine the site, back in medieval times, being apportioned with a long, sloping west gateway leading up to the top of the knoll. With little work, the surrounding ponds and marshes would have yielded a moat, so that the site was possibly chosen for an important future building, to be protected in the manner of castles or buildings during that era back in Europe. There is a definite reason Runestone Hill was surrounded by a dozen or more stonehole rocks, and, once again, I think the KRS was simply a memorial stone to be found by people who might be returning to Runestone Hill. For what? How big were the plans? How secret? We have few clues.

But nothing should be added to the few clues we have, such as suggesting--without any evidence--that the KRS was moved, possibly even a long distance. Runestone Hill is, even today, exactly as described on "The Stone."

LynnBrant link

12/28/2013 06:14:44 am

1. There is no provenance whatsoever for the KRS.

2. Dating carvings in stone is a pseudo-science not accepted by real science anywhere. Were it otherwise, "archeopetography" would be a breakthrough, the science journals would be full of articles, and archaeologists would be using it regularly.

12/28/2013 10:52:00 am

You know I was thinking about Christmas' of the past today while looking at my Christmas Tree and remembered one present my mother bought for me when I was around 10.

A Rock Tumbler.

You put pieces of rock in there that looked like any other bland stone and after a week or so of tumbling in the various grits you ended up with a polished, gem-like looking stone.

In regards to dating these stones, wouldn't it possible that someone could easily fake erosion or wearing to a specified time period, considering that there are already standards to judge known authentic stone items like gravestones?

Sorry if this has been addressed in the past.

12/28/2013 11:28:35 am

I would like to see a tumbler big enough to tumble a 202 pound, rectangular stone. But of course we see what you are saying. Everything has to be considered, including the intentional aging of objects. (Just so we remember that not all strange items found and being found have been artificially aged.)

12/28/2013 11:45:34 am

Without citing a rock tumble that size I cannot attest to whether it would even replicate the condition of the stones in question.

I was more exploring the idea that dating something by weather erosion or other deterioration seems very unreliable because there are too many variables and not enough controls.

My point is that Wolter's forensic geological evidence while possibly interesting, does not have enough by itself to drive this case home.

Why don't those who support the KRS and other runestones look for other evidence that would prove a Viking presence rather than debate a controversial stone.

I mean if there were a group of Vikings near the KRS site long enough to sit and carve a 200 lb rock with a message, they had to be there long enough to leave something behind, anything.

Just saying.

12/28/2013 11:37:14 pm

Will, thanks for the comment. Please go to this site I hate, and see the "geography" and "other artifacts" sections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Runestone

There ARE other artifacts and unusual circumstances to consider.

For example, the other day here on this blog, I mentioned the peculiarity of the Wilmot, SD area, which contains the upper Whetstone River, which is a place where multiple evidences can be found, including dozens of stoneholes and several carvings, suggesting medieval Swedish influence in that specific location.

I've been trying to get my mind around all this, and this morning I woke up with the realization that Wilmot, SD is at the middle point of two water routes coming together, one from the north (Hudson Bay) and one coming from the west, that being from Lake Superior.

This is the great circle I think an early Scandinavian sailor/explorer talked about. I don't remember his name, and I couldn't find the source this morning, but I think the great circle he was talking about is the two water routes converging at Big Stone Lake. Wilmot is important because medieval peoples saw the two river routes converging there in that area, where there happens to be plenty of rocks for marking out individual land claims.

Runestone Hill is significant in this "discovery," because it is on a direct compass line between Duluth and Wilmot. Runestone Hill is encircled with many stonehole rocks, which I think were made to show the importance of this location, as being a reference point in mapping the landscape.

Runestone Hill was reachable by the Chippewa River, which drains into the MN River. Also, Wilmot area was reachable by the MN River route, or by the Hudson Bay/Nelson River route, which when hooked together made a huge, navigable circle. Wilmot is the connecting point, which is why I believe so many evidences are located there. Wilmot represented the "middle of nowhere" they were looking for--but also represented the location of the convergence of the two water routes.

I believe the large white stone I found (see my website) with the flattened top and slab cracked from a stonehole is possibly a geographical marker, as is Runestone Hill. The KRS was merely placed there as a memorial stone because the KRS party expected people to return to the stonehole marked Runestone Hill.

Will, I believe the evidences you want are to be found near Wilmot, SD, along the Whetstone River. Basically, the locals don't have a clue about all this...yet. Personally, I think this is also the best explanation for the Mandans, too, since the Whetstone River area is littered with these early evidences, and the Mandans were located not far away, in ND.

Eventually, I believe evidences with provenance will be found in this Wilmot, SD area, and I think it is a good place for Wolter to turn his attention to. The stoneholes are the glue holding this elusive history together for the time being...until more is discovered, and with provenance.

12/28/2013 11:39:02 pm

Sorry, click on green Gunn

12/28/2013 11:22:40 am

There is partial provenance for the KRS. You are foolish to believe otherwise. There are cases where it is not a matter of either having provenance or not, but how much. Part of the provenance of the KRS is the good reputation of the finder, a man you have purposely tarnished. You seem to have no remorse, I guess because you are so sure of yourself in your own mind. But aren't you guilty of judging? I suppose so, yes. You have attempted to separate the input of Ohman's good reputation from the totality of the situation, then you claim there is no provenance after doing so. Now, there is also the increasing runic evidence which increases the KRS's provenance, such as the Greenland Runestone discovered rather recently.

Also, I would like to point out that there is a reason why Olaf may not have wanted to report his find "publicly" right away, though no reason whatsoever could be thought of, above in this thread. He may have thought the spot contained something besides the runestone, and he may have wanted to do a bit more digging around, first. I'm not sure of the timing, but in fact he did do some excavation around the location site.

Dating carvings in stone is definitely accepted by real science. We have countless examples where the age is roughly determined to be from a specific time-frame. Other factors, help...the style and content of the petrography, for example. Of course, exact dating isn't possible.

Archeopetography is a coined phrase, obviously not (yet?) accepted in the realm of science. It is merely a term thought up to indicate the combining of archaeology with petrography, for convenience of expression, if nothing else. But there is often a relationship, or at least there can be in some cases.

In this sense, Wolter is laying some claim to fame because of his earlier work with aging stone carving. It will be difficult for him on the road ahead unless and until he begins to disclose various methods for date-testing carvings (including stoneholes). There is chemical analysis to consider in the degradation process, and this can be somewhat measured. Also, we could be fed splendid images of detailed, close-up microscopic views that might in some way be telling. There is also the possibility of locating carbon dating samples within rock chips buried in soil beneath extensive carvings, or exceptionally large and deep stoneholes.

LynnBrant, you are wrong about both of these things, so I guess one should take with a grain of salt anything you have to say about the KRS and the much misaligned Ohman family.

RLewis

12/28/2013 12:57:09 pm

ISW was nice enough to respond to my multiple posts on his blog. No new information, really - although I thought his take on the Vikings' relationships with Native Americans vs the Templars' to be interesting.

Josey Wales

12/31/2013 01:26:54 am

I was surprised to see H2 doing a reality show based on the speculative archeology periodical "American Archaeology". Much of the so called "evidence" has been long ago debunked as the product of attention seekers, side show operators, or zealots attempting to "seed" fake evidence in an effort to support the tenets of their religious faith.

So far I've seen two episodes: America Unearthed "Grand Canyon Treasure" and America Unearthed Vikings in America. The first left me looking over the edge of a cliff after a trumped up "I know how we can get down to the cave" $1,000/hr flight to the rim. The second left me staring at a submerged rock fifty feet offshore "too dangerous" to inspect. Both episodes were a disappointment.

I'm not going to give H2 a third opportunity to disappoint me. If I want entertainment I'll go to my local bookstore and pick up a copy of "The Archaeological Conservancy", read it as I sip my latte, then return it to the magazine rack after my head has been stuffed with a plethora of unsubstantiated archeological "facts".

KKernitz

2/1/2014 09:27:49 am

First, debating who arrived in N America first is a fools errand. Unless I've missed something no prizes are up for grabs to whoever crossed the finish line first.
Second, I've read through many of the statements below which clearly are well thought out and written. One of the statements in particular indicated it would be nice if Wolter would explain his conclusions more in depth. I'm simply asking can anyone here, Wolter, or hosts of similar shows explain anything while trying to sift through 35 minutes of commercials in a 1 hour show? Personally thats the most intriguing mystery to solve. Finally, is anyone here ready to kick their dog if they hear one more thing about the Sinclairs, Templar Knights or Free Masons? If anyone here is a descendant of the Sinclairs or a Free Mason you have my deepest sympathy.

mort

2/2/2014 07:30:54 pm

Episode 4 14:30 miuntes in. ist that an ufo?

Nelson Lantz link

2/7/2014 06:37:43 am

I have info of a carving in solid granite 500 or more years old that no one can identify in Nova Scotia, Natural museums of History Halifax, England, Spain, Micma elders, surveyors, lumber co's, Dan Blankenship (Oak Island), no one knows.
Was referred to Scott Wolter. Please contact me.

W. E. Schuetz

4/23/2014 08:27:40 am

I read the entire column of comments about Scott Wolters and his show, but, I don't understand the vitriolic attitude of some of the bloggers. If you have already made up your mind, why don't you say that in the beginning so the rest of us can skip your comments. I do not accept everything I see and hear on these shows, but, I am intrigued by the subject matter and would like to see more research and digging to find definitive answers. If you have already made up your mind, why don't you change the channel and watch something else. I teach U. S. History and I am constantly finding mistakes on the history channel, but, I don't go ballistic and blog my little heart out about it. What are you going to say if it turns out that Wolters is correct? Consider how much our history has changed and been refined because we continue to research and uncover facts to correct what was written in the history books. I think open-mindedness is critical in this issue.

4/23/2014 08:32:13 am

I can't speak for everyone, but as the only blogger here (it's my blog--the other people are commenting on it), I can tell you that if Wolter turns out to right about anything he'll still have gone about it the wrong way. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't follow something resembling the conventional approach to science and history. If you don't think standards are worth upholding, you are welcome to sit in silence, but other people like to know what's wrong with claims. I don't see how you can advocate uncovering and correcting history without supporting the efforts of those who uncover and correct the mistakes of those who seek to rewrite it.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.