One of the objections that is occasionally raised against the Kensington Runestone is the apparent foolishness of creating such a marker in the wilderness. Even if another party attempted to follow in their wake, the Norse explorers were considerably distant from any easily tracible route. A inscribed stone along the Red River may have been considered feasible , but a stone raised on a hill in a swamp some 40 miles away from that waterway stood little chance of discovery.
Nevertheless, if we are to assume that a Norse contingent did reach this area of Minnesota, a reasonable explaination of the motivation of the group should be put forward. Even if they had maintained some hope of its discovery, they certainly could not have expected that the runestone would ever be found. So, rather than an explicitly logical explaination for the inscription, I believe we should look deeper into the psychological needs of the party.
With this in mind, and with the realization that any explaination that I might imagine would have no authority behind it, I posed the question of motivation to Prof. Gloria Leon of the University of Minnesota, who specializes in stress and coping in extreme environments, working as a consultant with NASA in that capacity. I presented to Prof. Leon a summary of the purported exploratory trip (see complete text of my letter below) as well as the following assessment of the motivation for the group to produce a stone:
"My take on this is that it is almost natural in a time of extreme stress, such as we see in the above scenario, to attempt to leave something behind, regardless of its chance of survival. I liken it in many ways to a "letter home" as written by a soldier before battle and entrusted to a comrade whose chance of survival is as limited as the writer's."
And I recived the following reply:
"Your research and hypotheses regarding the Kensington Runestone are extremely interesting. I agree with your interpretation about why the group would leave the marker even though there was little likelihood anyone would find it. I think that it is an affirmation to the group members of their existence and mission. If one wants to look at this from an evolutionary perspective, perhaps there is a biological or other drive to perpetuate one's species or identity; so too, a group in extreme stress can communicate to others some meaning in their endeavors, as well as a last goodbye."
To the best of my knowledge this is the first time that a professional has given their opinion on the possible motivations for a 14th century inscription of the runestone.
--------------------------
Full text of my email to Prof. Leon:
Dear Prof Leon,
I am an amateur historian, and I am hoping you might assist me with a problem, either directly or by suggesting articles and/or other contacts which might bear on the question.
I have been researching the Kensington Runestone for over 4 years, and have had a pair of peer reviewed articles published on the subject as well as authoring a small booklet. I have over that time come to believe that the artifact, claiming to be a record of a 1362 Norse exploration to Minnesota, is likely to be authentic.
Experts of various disciplines have over the past century addressed most aspects of the runestone, though one subject still has not been sufficiently investigated on a professional level. The question is is it reasonable to believe that this group (assuming authenticity) given the situation they found themselves in, would have created this marker, knowing that it was highly unlikely anyone would ever discover it.
To give you a little more background on the presumed situation:
In 1354, Magnus Erikson, King of Norway and Sweden, presented orders to Paul Knutson to take the royal knorr (trading vessel) and sail to Greenland to preserve Christianity there. Reports had come back that some Greenlanders were falling into pagan ways, and apparently one settlement had been found deserted. It has also been suggested that the voyage was meant to explore beyond Greenland as well, though this was not stated in the orders.
The King also gave Knutson permission to choose men "from my bodyguard or other men's attendants or of other men whom you may induce to go with you" - this would then have been a select crew of about 30-50 men. We have no specific record of their departure, but might assume it to be 1355 or 1356 - so by the time of the inscription they would have been together for roughly a half dozen years.
The stone itself talks about 8 Goths and 22 Norrmen, the Goths presumably being Swedes and Norrmen being from Norway. It has been suggested that dialectic difficulties would have been overcome by creating their own linguistic coin (which might also explain some of the numerous linguistic problems with the inscription).
The voyage would undoubtedly have stopped at Iceland and Greenland, perhaps making several stops at the later colony (wintering there) as they explored the areas outward from Greenland. It is possible that if they had voyaged far to the north, they would have come across an inscribed stone on Kingiktorsuak Island. This runic inscription, found atop one of three cairns reads "Erling Sigvatsson and Bjarne Thordarson and Endridi Oddsson raised these beacons the Saturday before gagndag [April 25] and wrote" after which comes 6 odd symbols whose meaning is still debated.
The most likely route inland would have been through Hudson Bay, then leaving the main ship on the coast (with 10 men) up the Nelson River, Lake Winnipeg, and the Red and Ottertail Rivers. With the exception of the Nelson River this should not have been a particularly difficult journey.
The inscription reports of a tragic incident which then occurs "one days-journey north from this stone", possibly in the Fergus Falls area. Most of the group was out to fish (possibly building up stores before returning to Hudson Bay) and when they returned they found "10 men red with blood and dead". It has been assumed that this referred to an attack by Native Americans, but that is not specifically stated.
The survivors traveled south "a days-journey" (which may be a reference to distance rather than time) to a hill in the middle of a swamp. This hill may have been an island or may have been connected to the mainland by a isthmus. At any rate, the position would have been highly defensible, having a good view in all directions as well as the protection of the high ground of the hill. I believe that the group would have considered it a reasonable place of temporary safety. It is assumed that the stone was carved within a few days of the group arriving at the hill, but this is not certain.
As to the inscription itself the face of the stone, according to a recent translation reads:
8 Goths and 22 Norwegians on
discovery voyage from
Vinland over [the] west we
had camp by 2 skerries one
days journey north from this stone
we were and fishe(ed) one day after
we came home found 10 men red
with blood and dead A[ve] V[irgo] M[aria]
preserve from evil
The inscription is written in Norse Runes with the exception of AVM which were in Latin letters. The inscription does not use names, but otherwise follows the general pattern of who had the stone inscribed, who and what happened, and ending with a prayer.
The side of the stone also has an inscribed section, which does not fit with the normal pattern of runestones:
have 10 men by the sea to see
after our ship[s] 14 day-journeys
from this island year 1362
The question that rises from all this is who is this inscription written for? Certainly they would have had little expectation that anyone would find it - not only were they thousands of miles from 'civilization', but were well off their probable route inland. It seems, from a logical point of view, a foolish thing to attempt.
My take on this is that it is almost natural in a time of extreme stress, such as we see in the above scenario, to attempt to leave something behind, regardless of its chance of survival. I liken it in many ways to a "letter home" as written by a soldier before battle and entrusted to a comrade whose chance of survival is as limited as the writer's.
Unfortunately, my thoughts along these lines are really no more than a hunch based on a limited knowledge of human nature, and that is why I am requesting your input as a professional in the matter. Is my suggestion sound? Are there other aspects which need to be addressed? Might this occur only within certain cultural and/or historical context, or would that desire to leave something behind a universal impetus?
Any light you might shed on the subject, or any books, studies, or other sources of information would be deeply appreciated.
Thank you.
Yours,