>Well, that's all very well, but I did not comment the issue of discovery
>I merely pointed out that I was a bit surprised about the fact that it
>was so special to some that there was a rune stone over there. Of course
>there has been a lot of people visiting America for thousands of years
>there's no doubt about that and I do not suggest anything else. And sure
>they left marks - like f. i. rune stones.
This particular runestone is somewhat remarkable both for its size
and for its location: it's about a five hundred miles from the nearest ocean.
Yes, Lief Ericsson was part of the curriculum when I went to school, too
(in Georgia, in the 1960s). This runestone wasn't, but it's been no
secret to those of us who have looked around for such things; it's
actually rather famous, as such things go.
Here is the OK state gov.'s web page on the park, with a picture
of the rock and a legible version of the runes themselves:
http://admin.hps.osrhe.edu/hps/htmls/runepark.htm
It points to a page with a concise description of the history of the
interpretation of this rock. It says the currently accepted date for
the rock is 750 AD.
The woman who did most of the research, Gloria Stewart Farley,
has published a book on the subject, which is also listed in those
pages. And she's online and invites correspondence, if anybody
is interested in doing so.
By the way, she didn't just research this rock; she found others,
and her conclusions also involve Libyans and Egyptians for some
other rocks.
Disclaimer: I haven't read the book nor seen these stones, and I
have no idea how good her research is. Sounds interesting, though.
>Regards Lena
John S. Quarterman <jsq@mids.org>
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html