3 ms·

The difference here is that we are talking about registered tax paying catholics vanishing without leaving corpses over a period of maybe 10 years. I.E. the rec

The difference here is that we are talking about registered tax paying catholics vanishing without leaving corpses over a period of maybe 10 years. I.E. the record suggest that the last holdouts did not die on Greenland but boarded a ship that never got recorded back in Europe.(though that don't mean they never made it back) The Kensington rune stone with dated in a system common to the Christian viking age around the time when one of the expedition launched from Norway to find the missing tax payers adds to the mystery presuming that the Kensington runestone is genuine.

ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
It's almost certainly a fake. As the late Samuel Eliot Morrison described it, 'Scandanknavery'.
- kpil 10y ago
  Isn't it a stretch to call them "Vikings?" They where clearly Norwegians. The Kalmar Union was in effect in 1450, and the kingdoms had been formed for long. There were at least two Universities in Scandinavia, etc.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    >Isn't it a stretch to call them "Vikings?" Are you saying we shouldn't call them Vikings because they weren't engaged in raiding and piracy, or we shouldn't call them Vikings because they were Norwegian?
    - kpil 10y ago
      I am not sure what constitutes 'vikingness', but the government, culture and economy was nothing like what I think comes to mind when thinking of vikings. The viking era ended 400 years before, because of Christianity and the rise of strong kings and kingdoms. (Working together) They certainly did not call themselves vikings, if some ever did.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Stranger43 10y ago
  The problem here is that the arguments against it being fake rest on the same shaky ground of potentially obsolete science as the argument for it being genuine. see http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/kens/kens.htm http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/kens/kens.htm There was a huge shift in the academic literature on the medieval Norsemen and how the runic language changed doing the middle ages, doing the 60ies and 70ies when old monastic scripture gave way to tax records, archeology and "/experimental archeology/". that renders a lot of what still in the textbooks on who the Norsemen were kind of obsolete.

ZanyProgrammer 10y ago

It's almost certainly a fake. As the late Samuel Eliot Morrison described it, 'Scandanknavery'.

kpil 10y ago
Isn't it a stretch to call them "Vikings?" They where clearly Norwegians. The Kalmar Union was in effect in 1450, and the kingdoms had been formed for long. There were at least two Universities in Scandinavia, etc.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >Isn't it a stretch to call them "Vikings?" Are you saying we shouldn't call them Vikings because they weren't engaged in raiding and piracy, or we shouldn't call them Vikings because they were Norwegian?
  - kpil 10y ago
    I am not sure what constitutes 'vikingness', but the government, culture and economy was nothing like what I think comes to mind when thinking of vikings. The viking era ended 400 years before, because of Christianity and the rise of strong kings and kingdoms. (Working together) They certainly did not call themselves vikings, if some ever did.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Stranger43 10y ago
The problem here is that the arguments against it being fake rest on the same shaky ground of potentially obsolete science as the argument for it being genuine. see http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/kens/kens.htm http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/kens/kens.htm There was a huge shift in the academic literature on the medieval Norsemen and how the runic language changed doing the middle ages, doing the 60ies and 70ies when old monastic scripture gave way to tax records, archeology and "/experimental archeology/". that renders a lot of what still in the textbooks on who the Norsemen were kind of obsolete.