|
It strikes this writer as a supreme irony that, from the very start of the rune stone saga, it has been the runeologists and linguists who time after time have risen up in outrage proclaiming the stone a hoax because of some character or feature that they, in their present state of knowledge, had never seen before. And time after time, those features were discovered on stones in Europe or on documents, completely eliminating the basis for their accusations of fraud.
One cannot help but wonder why the public continues to give any credence at all to this clique of “scholars” who have for generations been the captives of their own closed-loop thinking. Closed loop in that, “Columbus is first because no-one was here before him,” and it can’t be pre-Columbian but he was here first.” And the rune stone is not the only artifact that has been condemned as a hoax by the linguists in a fashion that would make the Salem witch trials seem just and fair. The Spirit Pond Stones, the Narragansett Rune Stone and the Bat Creek Stone all received similar treatment from the runologists and all are now widely seen as authentic.
So, dear reader, with that as background we want to take you on brief tour of the history of linguistics and the Kensington Rune Stone. We can’t go into great depth here, your eyes would glaze over if we did. And we strongly suggest you read “Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence” by Wolter and Nielsen for more depth. Here though, are the principal reasons why the stone can now be deemed of medieval origin based on the runes alone.
|