Just for the record this conversation is awesome, and I'm enjoying it. I was once in a museum in South Dakota, Hot Spring to be exact, where a fully intact mastodon skeleton was standing. While the site contains a wealth of fossil records, this particular specimen was found by a farmer in Wisconsin, NOT by an archaeologist, or a paleontologist, or any "educated" person. The find was incredible and historic none the less. Does that make it any less significant? I showed you the pictures. A lot of these were discovered in places that I know, that are close to where I live, and yes, by farmers. Academic? No. Archeological? Probably not. Hoaxed? Perhaps. Either way, nobody is claiming that the Vikings ever settled in Minnesota. That didn't happen, you are almost 100% correct in that regard.
But, does that mean they never made it this far? I don't think so. It's possible. As mentioned by Fortune Seeker, the Vikings had skills, serious sailing, navigation, and fighting skills. The continent was a lot different 700 years ago. Some theorize that they wouldn't have had to trek into Minnesota at all, they could have sailed down from the Hudson Bay. The land of 10,000 lakes could have possibly been more like many giant bodies of water, connected by streams and rivers that were still backed up by both modern, and prehistoric beavers that were literally the size of small black bears. Ever seen a giant beaver damn? They just become earth after a certain period of time. Minnesota today has been drained beyond belief, 10,000 lakes still withstanding and all. That would explain this text, which is the generally accepted interpretation of the Rune Stone.
“We are 8 Goths [Swedes] and 22 Norwegians on an exploration journey from Vinland through the West. We had camp by a lake with 2 skerries [small rocky islands] one day’s journey north from this stone. We were out and fished one day. After we came home we found 10 of our men red with blood and dead. AVM [Ave Virgo Maria, or Hail, Virgin Mary] save us from evil. We have 10 of our party by the sea to look after our ships, 14 days’ journey from this island. Year 1362.”
Just assume for one minute the stone is real. No way could they be in Minnesota, and just 14 days from the sea. Why would a hoaxer even say such a thing
That makes no sense. A hoaxer would have said they were 47 days from the sea, or 66 days from the sea, or more, something to that effect. My point is Minnesota is a heck of a long walk from the sea. And for what it's worth, the fella who discovered the Rune Stone was Swedish, not Norwegian.
This is my final argument in favor of the Rune Stone being real. I know farmers. My mother grew up on a farm, I visited it often while my Grandma and Aunt still had it. My wife grew up on a farm. My father in law farms to this day, and my son works there. Most of my best friends grew up on farms. I've been in and on farms my entire life, and I know how farmers live. They work their preverbal butts off. They don't have time to sit around, chipping on rocks, that would take a month and a half to carve. And these are farmers with already cleared land, and tractors, and milking machines. You think farmers in the 1800's sat around carving ancient letters into stone?
With that being said, it could still be a hoax, but it would have to be a very elaborate one at that.
