There are many, many stoneholes in Minnesota. Just several days ago, a chart was posted here showing several reasons for proposed medieval stoneholes to exist, along with several reasons for so-called "modern" stoneholes to exist (in this case, stoneholes from the late 1800s). My purpose for this brief essay is to hone in on comparing and contrasting the aging of some of these stoneholes. Yes, it can be done, and to great effect. Let's do it here, then. Okay, this will be an exercise in just one aspect of empirical evidence, that being: visual observation, or "just plain seeing."
But, both of these stoneholes are in rocks which are located within only several paces of one another. How can this amazement be? Well, I tend to believe that the top stonehole is likely from one era--the late 1800's, and that the bottom stonehole is likely from another era, that being from medieval (Norse) times.
It also appears that we are dealing with two different stonehole types here, including shapes, in addition to looking at the stonehole aging representing two different eras. Generally speaking, most genuine Norse stoneholes in Minnesota and South Dakota look in appearance about like the stoneholes surrounding Runestone Hill, though some are a bit larger and--in this case--some are a bit smaller.
To me, the contrast and difference in aging is self-evident and unmistakable, but it still needs to be pointed out and explained. For instance, in this example, there is an obvious degree of decomposition on the uppermost walls of the small diameter Norse stonehole that the large stonehole doesn't show at all.
Because both rocks are in close proximity to one another on the ridgeline, they each experienced the same environmental conditions over the years...yet each shows a remarkable difference in decay from the another. How can this mystery be understood or explained unless one of the stoneholes was chiseled out well before the other--likely. by hundreds of years? Being two different kinds of rocks doesn't adequately or fully explain the situation.
I know from past experience that many Kensington Runestone naysayers like to think that the region's many genuine Norse stoneholes are only fantasy and wishful thinking, though some evidence does now actually indicate otherwise. Indeed, Minnesota's "history professionals" now have the opportunity of assessing and appreciating the Norse Code-stone site's many stoneholes...stoneholes that hint at yet another story of Norsemen visiting Minnesota--besides the Kensington Runestone party.
What do ya think...another stonehole?
Comments
Post a Comment