Ancient Norse Messages On American Stones

Citation preview

ANCIENT NORSE MESSAGES ON AMERICAN STONES

Copyright 1969 © by The Landsverk Foundation All Rights Reserved

Library of Cong1·ess Catalog Card Number: 73-87316

ANCIENT NORSE MESSAGES ON AMERICAN STONES

By 0 . G. LANDSVERK, Ph.D.

Published by

NORSEMAN PRESS, 1480 Millar Drive G lendale, California 91206

Spomor- The Landsverk Foundation

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Had it not been for Alf Monge, my coauthor in writing the first book on dated crypotgraphy in 1967, t he study of hidden dates in medieval runic inscriptions might have been a long time in getting under way. That the subj ect is developing so rapidly, and that the results are so significant, is almost entirely due to his outstanding compatence in the field and to his dedication to it. David T. Nelson, Professor emeritus of Luther College Decorah, Iowa, has been a constant source of encouragement. He also r ead the manuscript carefully and made many helpful suggestions as to how the subject could be presented with the greatest clarity. In view of the detailed nature of the subject, this was a time-consuming and laborious task. One of the veterans in the study of American runic inscriptions is Magnus Bjorndal, industrialist of Weehawken, New J ersey and a member of the board of the Norwegian American Historical Association. It was he who sponsored the original translations, shortly after 1940 A.D., of many runic inscriptions from the New England area by the late Olaf Strandvold. He has been very helpful, particularly in providing the best available photographs of the runic carvings. Those who have had a hand in developing insights into, and knowledge of, the exploits. and the continued presence of the Norsemen in the western hemisphere are almost legion. Among them are to be found many sincere critics. They are necessary in order to provide a balance. About both advocates and crit ics it is well to remember that it is possible to make progress today only because others have done the spadework and the pioneering. It is pleasant to think that the discovery of Norse dated cryptography is, itself, a late extension of that pioneering. 0. G. Landsverk 4

E

IOS

Ll3 ILLU ST RATIONS Description

Number

Page

lA

THE EASTER TABLE OF THE CALENDAR -------- ------ ---- 23

lB

THE 532

2

A 14th CENTURY NORWEGIAN PRIMSTAV ---·-··--------- 3 1

3

T HE OLD GERMANIC AND DANISH ALPHABETS ...... 33

4

PHOT0-11t h CENTURY N . AMERICAN CARVINGS .. 54-55

YEAR PERPETUAL CALENDAR .............. .. 26-27

5

FOUR 11th CENT. N. AMERICAN CRYPTOGRAMS -- ---- 60

6

THE VANGA INSCRIPTION FROM SWEDEN ...... ...... .... 7 3

7

PHOTO-THE KINGIGTORSSUAQ CARVING ------··----- --- 76

8

SIX NON-RUNIC SYMBOLS IN KINGIGTORSSUAQ ........ 80

9

A PAGE FROM WORM'S FAST! DANICI -·------·----------- 87

10

THE SECRET MESSAGE IN KINGIGTORSSUAQ --···------- 8 9

11 12A

KENSINGTON-PHOTO OF THE I NSCRIPTION -- ------ ·- 97 -THE TRANSLATION-NINE LINES ____ 9 8

12B

-THE LAST THREE LINES ···· ---------- ---- 99

13

- SYMBOLS THAT WERE ALTERED ...... 102

14

-ANALYSIS OF ALTERED SYMBOLS .... 105

15

-CHANGES I N THE TWELFTH LINE .. 108

16

- INSCRIPTION BEFORE THE C HANGES 109

17

- INDICATION OF SECRET MESSAGES .... 113

(Twenty unnumbered sketches) T able I

GENERAL FEATURES OF RUNIC C RYPTOGRAM S .. 3 8 -3 9

II

PROCEDURES I N RUNIC CRYPTOGRAMS .......... ... .44-45

III

SUMMARY OF THE F OUR SOLUTIONS ------·---··-----·-- 6 1

5

9 922 7

FOREWORD Ancient Norse Messages On American Stones was written because continued research had uncovered many new and important facts. They supplement what was reported in Norse Medieval Cryptography In Runic Carvings which was coauthored by cryptanalyst Alf Monge and the writer in 1967. The new knowledge has led to deeper insights into the origin, procedures, and development, over the centuries, of this long lost art. Another reason for producing a second volume at t his time is to correct a mistaken assumption. This is that scholarship in nmology, and in the medieval Scandinavian dia lects, could provide t he tools for either discovering Norse dated crypto-grams or for solving them. Much confusion has arisen from t his misconception. It has also led directly to anothe1· assumption which has proved to be equally in error. This is that r unology and linguistics can serve as bases for valid criticism. This volume proves conclusively t hat both assumptions are mistaken. Perhaps the most revealing evidence in this respect is the solution, in Chapter 6, of two runic puzzles from 12th and 13th century Norway. These are inscriptions that have been well known to the runologists for several decades. Because they contain m any strange non-runic features, they have been favorite subjects for study, discussion a nd conjecture. However t hey have been incorrectly interpr et ed in every detail as examples of magic and incantation. Far from being attempts at magic and sor cery t hese a re perfect examples of dated runic puzzles. About fifty such have been solved by cryptanalyst Alf Monge since 1963. Thereby ended a period of more than five hundred years during which this unusual medieva l art had been forgotten. Firm statem ents by runologists that they have had no knowledge of it confirms that it has been unknown in modern times. 6

Unde1· these conditions the possibility of forgery can be ruled out. The dates a re stated in each of the two inscriptions by identical procedures. Furthermore, t he name of each runemaster is given, in scrambled form, by exactly the same method in each carving. These runic puzzles are twins in every respect even though their year numbers are separated by nearly a century. There is not the slightest chance that such identical construction could have happened by accident. Anyone who will read Chapter 6 carefully, and with an open mind, will know that these ar e dated puzzles. It is important to note that both inscriptions are listed, and interpreted as magic, in t he five-volume work Norges Innskrifter Med De Yngre Runer (Norways Inscriptions With The Younger Runes) . Since 1954 runologist Aslak Liest01, curator of the National Museum at Oslo, has been the associate editor. Obviously, he knows these inscriptions very well. He is, at the same time, a firm exponent of t he theory that they are examples of magic and sorcery.

One need not be surprised, therefore, that Liest0l is also the self-appointed and quite abr asive critic of dated runic puzzles. Without a pparently understanding the subject at all , he has continued to insist that Norse dated cryptogr aphy does not exist - anywher e. It is clear that he now faces a dilemma since it has been demonstrated that there a re dated runic puzzles among the very inscriptions that he knows best. Ironically, he has himself created the dilemma by stepping out of the field of his compteence. It should also be noted t hat the twin runic puzzles in Chapter 6 are only a small beginning. It is only recently that Monge has had the time to concentrate on the Norwegian inscriptions. But he has already solved a considerable number of other runic puzzles in inscriptions that are taken from Norways Inscriptions With The Younger Runes. The number promises eventually to total several dozen. The solutions will be published, of course, as opportunity presents itself. It is easily predictable that such continued uninformed denial of 7

the existence of dated runic puzzles, in Norwegian inscriptions and elsewhere, will be quite unrewarding in the future. An interesting sidelight is the way in which Liest01 has been quoted, with obvious relish, by certain historians and linguists. His testimony was welcome to bolster long-held positions on runic inscriptions on the North American continent. These positions are rendered untenable by the existence of dated cryptograms in the inscriptions. It apparently did not matter to these historians and linguists that they were in no position to judge the proficiency of Liest¢! in the field of cryptanalysis. Also the crucial fact was ignored that Liest01 was operating outside of his field of competence, runology. The result is that substantially all criticism of Norse dated cryptography to date has been based eit her on false assumptions or is irrelevant. The constructions in runic inscriptions, which are discussed in these pages, reveal hidden dates and, often, the autographs of the runemasters as well as other information. In this volume they are usually referred to as cryptograms. Alf Monge, who is the cryptanalyst, while he recognizes that they contain some cryptographic features, prefers to call them cryptopuzzles. He identifies them as such, for example, in Chapter 6. Technically, Monge is right. The difference lies in the fact that the term cryptogram, as it is usually defined, implies a fixed code on which the maker, and the prospective solver, have mutually agreed in advance. The code specifies an exact meaning for each symbol that helps to deliver the message. As a result only one solution is possible. In all but the most elementary of runic puzzles there is also only a single solution. The information that is supplied from the perpetual calendar excludes all alternate solutions.

8

CONTENTS Chapter

Title

1.

INTRODUCTION

------------- -------- ----------------------------- 11

2.

THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROCEDURES OF NORSE DATED CRYPTOGRAPHY ---------- 21

3.

FOUR EARLY ELEVENTH-CENTURY NORTH AMERICAN RUNESTONES ---- ---------- 52

4.

THE KINGIGTORSSUAQ CRYPTOGRAM ____ __ 75

5.

THE KENSINGTON CRYPTOGRAM -------------- 96

6.

TWO RUNIC PUZZLES IN NORWEGIAN INSCRIPTIONS ____ ________ ______ ______ ________ ________________ ____ 125

9

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION There are excellent reasons for writing a second book about hidden dates in runic inscriptions at this time (1). New research has filled in areas in which information was previously either inadequate or lacking. It has solidly firmed up evidence, which was already substantial, that this ancient art was not only practiced but had flourished vigorously, centuries ago, to a t ruly astonishing degree. Briefly stated, a dated cryptogram, or if one prefers, a dated puzzle in a runic inscription, makes use of a special set of small whole numbers. Taken together, the numbers pinpoint a date in the Norse version of the medieval Roman Catholic perpetual calendar. There was nothing new in t he use of this calendar, or t he numbers of which it is composed. The perpetual calendar had been used in precisely this way by the catholic clergy to announce the holy days of the church year ever since the Council of Nicaea, in 325 A.D. The only novelty is that some No?'Se runernasters undertook to concecil these nuni bers in their runic inscriptions. Apparently, this was a sort of game which a segment of the Norse clergy enjoyed among its own members. Naturally, the general populace could not understand it. This may have been one of its chief attractions. It was these numbers which, properly concealed, converted ci norrnal in scri ption into ci dated puzzle. Dated runic carvings have been discovered over a tremendous area from Scandinavia and the Orkney Islands to Green( 1) The first book was published in September of 1967. It was coauthored by cryptanalyst Alf Monge and Dr. 0. G. L andsverk under t he title Norse Medieval Cryptography In Runic Carvings. Available from Norseman Press. 1480 Millar Drive, Glendale, Cal. $5.95 postpaid.

11

land, New England, Oklahoma, and Minnesota. They range in length from only three runic symbols to more than two hundred. All that are known to date are carved in stone or wood with one exception. A very important cryptogram is found in a Latin text from the early 12th century. That this unusual craft should have survived and spread over a large segment of the globe during a period of three and a half centuries can only mean one thing. This is that it was nurtured within the folds of an extraordinarily stable organization. It would seem that only the Catholic Church could have provided the necessary degree of continuity. It is, in fact, quite clear that many, if not all, of the Norse runemast ers who constructed dated puzzles were member s of the clergy. There are indications that the original impetus may actually have come from the Benedictine Order . This order had established many thousands of monasteries, and was extremely active and powerful in northern Europe during the three centuries after 1000 A.D. It is known that some of the earliest missionaries to Scandinavia were Benedictines. It is therefore not unlikely that the origin of such dated puzzles may have been one or the other of the famous Benedictine monastery schools of England, France or Germany. It was quite common for young men from Scandinavia to receive their training for the priesthood in the Benedictine schools of those countries. If this actually was the course of events, one might expect that dated cryptograms were once to be found in Latin texts that antedate the earliest known runic puzzles. If they indeed once existed, and if t hey still survive, they would presumably be found among late 10th century church documents. Such dated puzzles would also be expected to use the decimal system. Virtually all Norse dated cryptograms used the decimal system over the entire period from 1009 to 1362 A.D. Such early use of the system in Scandinavia has been contrary to what has previously been believed to be the case. Yet decimals were taught in the monastery schools of Europe at least three decades before the earliest known dated cryptogram. Since decimal numbers will be mentioned quite frequently from this point on, a definition of the term might be in order. The word "decimal" is, of course, derived from the Latin word 12

decem which means ten. In a decimal number the digits have

values that are based on their positions in the number. The values are assigned according to a scale of ten. To the left from the decimal point, the successive digits, whose normal values lie in the range from zero to nine, are multiplied by one for the digit in the first position, ten in the second, a hundred in the third and so on. This system is, of course, vastly superior to either the Roman or the runic m ethods for representing numbers. These were based, not on multiplication, but on addition. The decimal system h as nothing to do with the Arabic symbols by the use of which the numbers ar e normally written. Any number of other sets of shapes to r epresent the digits can be devised. Up to this time a t otal of about four dozen such dated puzzles have been solved. Monge estimates that there m ay be as many as two hundred in all. This compares with a total of six or seven thousand runic inscriptions that are known in Scandinavia. Over the centuries ther e was a drastic increase in t he length of dated inscriptions. Naturally the increase was uneven and varied with time and place. However, by way of illustration, seven early 11th century inscriptions vary in length from three to ten symbols. Two centuries later the 13th century Kingigtorssuaq (Greenland) cryptogram was carved with eitghty-eight runes and eigh t additional non-runic symbols. The Kensington inscription from Minnesota has two hundred twenty-two runes. Kensington is the latest and the longest inscription that it yet known which contains a dated cryptogram. It was carved in 1362 A.D. The increase in length forced changes in the t ypes of procedures t h at could be used to conceal the calendrical numbers in the inscriptions. One factor remained constant however. There was no change in the use of t he perpetual calendar to specify the dates. This remained unchanged over the entire three and a half centuries from 1008 to 1362 A.D. It is clear that, as the runic inscriptions grew longer, the finer cryptographic details tended to become lost in the text. In order to prevent this, more theatrical and flamboyant procedures had to be devised for embedding the cryptograms into the inscriptions. Of what use, after all, is a cryptogram which is so scattered and vague that it is not discovered? Or, 13

having been discovered, what good does it serve if it can not be solved with any degree of assurance, or can not be solved at all? The very existence of this unusual form of amusement, if such it was, has remained completely unknown for well over five hundred years. The system was rediscovered by cryptanalyst Alf Monge in 1963. To be successful, research in these areas requires special talents and training. Monge, by a fortunate combination of circumstances, possess both to an extraordinary degree. Events have confir med, what has been suspected from the beginning, that Monge is, even up to the present moment, the only expert in the field. This is not desirable of course, and, hopefully, will not continue for very long. It is, however, a situation that must always be endured, at least temporarily, whenever a distinct break-through is made into a previously unknown area. of research. It might be helpful at this point to add that this volume, as was true with the f irst, takes no issue with the runologists, or with students of the m edieval Norse language, in the broad areas of their compet ence. In fact, Norse dated cryptography is cradled in the same body of knowledge. This is necessarily so even though the runic puzzles themselves are not a part of either runology or linguistics. The explanation is not far to seek. The runemasters of the middle ages oper ated from the same base. It was, obviously, a part of their immediate cult ural heritage. Ther efore, they were, of necessity, the original and t rue experts in a way that it is not possible to duplicate hundreds of years later. This is true of the language and the runes as well as of the cryptography which they superposed on both. It applies wit h especial force to dated runic puzzles since the runemaster s who cr eated them came from the best educated section of the populace. To be more specific, these chapters illustrate, and use, t he runic alphabets as the runologists have agreed on them among themselves. This is true in all respects: 1. As to the shapes of the runes ; 2. The number of runes in each alphabet ; 3. The sound, or the sounds, which each runic symbol r epresents; 4. The relative positions of the r unes within each alphabet; 5. The numerical value which is as signed to each symbol. In the same way the Roman Catholic perpetual cal-

14

endar, and its Norse offspring, the primstav, are described and used in the accepted manner in this presentation. It is fortunate that ther e is this broad base of agreement. Without it, a meaningful discussion of Norse dated cry ptography would be difficult, or impossible. The agreement ends, however , in one specific area. This is the interpretations t hat some runologists have made of certain r unic inscriptions. This rather large group of inscriptions includes some very well known members such as the Kingigtorssuaq inscription from northern Greenland , and the Kensington carving. They invariably contain unexplained nonrunic features which are inserted into, or added on, the visible texts. In most cases these non-runic features interfere with the translations so that they become confused, or are incomplete, or are even missed altogether. In all these cases the origins of the non-runic features, and their purposes, have not been understood. As a result they have either been ignored, or they have been misinterpreted as attempts at magic and incantation. The fact is that the stmnge features ccin only be explained by solving the dcited cryptogram that is embedded in the inscription. They are there either as a part of the cryptograrn, or to call attent'ion to it. However, in effecting the solution, one departs from the fields of runology and linguistics and enters the entirely di fferent realm of cryptoanalysis. Until the connection was discovered between these nonrunic features and the perpetual calendar, no progress was possible. Monge was the first to realize this connection, and along with it the principles and procedures of Norse dated cryptography. Of outstanding interest and importance are a total of twelve dated cryptograms from the western hemisphere. Geographically, ten of these have been discovered in runic inscriptions in the continental United States. One is located in Maine, two are in Massachusetts, one in Rhode Island, five in eastern Oklahoma, and one in west-central Minnesota. In point of time, six are from the early 11th century, three from the first quarter of the 12th century, and one from the 14th century. This does not at all mean that "puzzle-happy" runemasters had been roaming all over the western hemisphere during those centuries. In fact, it is quite certain that the entire

15

twelve were the work of only four runemasters. As fate would have it, the four runemasters lived roughly a century apart. So far as is now known, Kingigtorssuaq and Kensington, from the 13th and t he 14th centuries respectively, were the only cryptographic creations of their respective runemasters. All of the six 11th century North American runic puzzles were, as ·will be shown in Chapter 3, almost certainly the work of a single individual. In the case of the North American cryptograms from the 12th century, there can be no doubt. Henricus, the first bishop to Greenland, secretly autographed his name in each. Three are found in runic carvings in New England. The fourth is in the Latin legends that are adjacent to the out lines of Vinland and Greenland in the Vinland Map. It is a 15th century copy of the original of this map whose discove-ry was announced by Yale University in 1965. In this connection it is obviously significant that both the 11th and 12t h century North American cryptograms have dates that are surprisingly close together in each case, namely 1009 to 1022 A.D., and 1112 to 1122 A.D. The spread is only 13 and 10 years, respectively. This lends further support to the belief that, in each case, these inscriptions were the product of a single runemaster. Equally intriguing and important is t he fact that a large majority of these secretly dated inscriptions contain references to the Christian religion. This is true of eleven of the twelve that are found in the western hemisphere. The explanation is that it was mainly members of the clergy who were sufficiently skilled in the use of the perpetual calendar so that they could use it in this relatively knowledgeable manner. They were taught the construction and use of the calendar in their monastery schools. With them it was a professional necessity to know the calendar well. The fact that priests and monks were involved, had a very important consequence. It was a common practice of the church to assign a member of the clergy to accompany hazardous expeditions. This custom must have been followed in the case of many, and perhaps all, of the very dangerous expeditions that the Norsemen made to the North American mainland. It is well known that Leif Erikson had members of the clergy aboard when he returned from Norway to his home in Greenland. This had been agreed to at, the urging of Olav 16

Trygvasson, King of Norway. It happened after Leif had spent the winter as a guest of the king at Nidaros. During the course of his stay, he had accepted the Christian religion, and was baptized. The sagas imply that Christianity was quite promptly accepted by many of the Greenlanders, including the wife of the found er of the colonies, Erik the Red. Unquestionably, additional representatives of the church were soon stationed in Greenland. It was only a little over a century later that the Greenland colonies became a bishopric. The bishop's seat was located at Gardar in the Eastern Settlement. A cathedral building whose horizontal dimensions were almost as large as the contemporary cathedral at Nidaros (now Trondheim) in Norway was erected there. By that time several monasteries had been established, and many churches had been organized. The record shows that the church continued to function in Greenland at least into the early part of the 15th century. There seems, therefore, to be no good reason to question t he presence of priests or monks with Norse expeditions to America, and in subsequent colonial ventures. Nevertheless, it must be accounted to be a piece of good fortune that, at least some of them, were also devotees of the art of constructing dated runic puzzles. In Chapters 4 and 5 the solutions of the cryptograms in the Kingigtorssuaq and the Kensington inscriptions are analyzed. In the process both chapters illustrate clearly the ineffectiveness, and indeed the irrelevancy, of two scholarly disciplines, runology and linguistics. By contrast, the chapters demonstrate the efficacy of another, cryptanalysis. The Kingigtorssuaq inscription contains no less than thirty hitherto unexplained even though visible non-runic details. They were deliberately introduced into the inscription in the process of constructing and confirming the date in its cryptogram and delivering a message. In the Kensington inscription, which has more than twice as many symbols, the number of non-runic details are nearly doubled. It should be noted that, in both inscriptions, virtually all these anomalies were well known to the runologists and widely discussed, but their origin and purpose was not understood. The inability of runology and linguistics to solve runic

17

puzzles is further illustrated by four early 11th century North American inscriptions. Their dated puzzles are analyzed in Chapter 3. All these puzzles use identical procedures. This involves a total of several dozen details that are obviously arranged according to a consistent pla n. It can only be concluded that they were all constructed by the same runemast er, or conceivably, but less likely, by two closely cooperating colleagues. These four puzzles do contain a few changes of procedures and cryptographic detail. However, they are invariably cases in which the original method was either no longer possible in stating the new date, or the use of it would have led to confusion. In either case, its use would have ruined the cryptogram. T hat such mistakes were always avoided is addit ional indirect evidence that these are carefully planned and executed puzzles. A unique f eature of these inscriptions is that their symbols are not used to represent sounds, but only numbers. This is the reason that all attempts at a translation have invariably ended in failure. No meaning was intended, and no translation is possible. Under these conditions it is clear that these are numerical puzzles, and no more. Neither runology or the medieval Norse language can play any role. In Chapter 6 the inability of the tools of runology or linguistics to operate effectively in cryptanalysis is even more evident. It analyzes the solutions of two simple, but ingeniously constructed mono-alphabetic conversion cipher s. These are by no means unique examples. There are many such in runic inscriptions. A number of conversion ciphers are known which are parts of solutions of dated cryptograms. Among them are both the Vimland Map and the Kingigtorssuaq inscription from northern Greenland. The latter is analyzed in Chapter 4. Actually, r unologists had solved a number of the more elementary conversion ciphers. However, they could not solve those that are analyzed by cryptanalyist Alf Monge in Chapter 6. Most importantly, they did not solve any runic puzzles whose dates are stated, and confirmed, by reference to the Norse church calendar. These two runic puzzles are "twins" in that they use identical procedures throughout in spite of the fact that they reveal the names of two different runemasters, Kanutr and 18

Guthorm. They also state year numbers that are ninety-eight years apart. One was very likely used as a pattern for the other. Finally, they use the same conversion alphabet. This series of similarities and coincidences could not have happened by accident. The two inscriptions have long been favorite subjects for study and discussion by runologists. This was so because of their very striking non-runic features. The inscriptions are included in standard works on carvings from the interiors of the stavechurches of Norway. However, the interpretations are incorrect in every detail. They do not reveal the names of the runemasters. Yet these are central features of the solution. Nor do they manage to decipher the dates of either. Instead, refuge is taken in the usual vague, and actually meaningless terms, incantation and magic. Monge shows that these carvings do not contain even a trace of magic. However, when they are treated as cleverly designed runic puzzles, they yeild solutions that are obviously both correct and complete. These are only two of many inscriptions from the stavechurches of Norway which are dated cryptograms but which are misinterpreted and ascribed to efforts at magic. Their real nature is completely missed. Additional examples will, of course, be published as opportunity permits. The basic source of the difficulty may be that proofs of solutions in dated cryptography are, basically, mathematical and scientific in nature. A reasonably good feeling for probabilities, such as is fundamental in most technical pursuits, is very desirable. This may be the reason that mathematicians and scientists appear to have little trouble in understanding, and accepting, No·r se dated cryptography. For those who are skilled in runology, linguistics and hisrory, it appears to be more difficult. The 11th and 12t h century western hemisphere inscriptions, including the Vinland Map, indicate that Leif Erikson's Vinland lay somewhere in New England. They also show that the Norsemen maintained colonies in the New England region over a period of more than a century. The indication is that in the early twelfth century there were Norsemen living in Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. What other reason could Henricus have had for carving inscriptions that are runic puzzles in those areas ? How strong these colonies were, I

19

and how long they continued to exist, are questions that additional dated inscriptions and archaeology may eventually be able to answer. It is not without interest that H enricus, when he constructed his autographed runic puzzles in New England, spelled his name with a le. He could not have done otherwise. The old Norse alphabet did not have a c. However, in the Latin legends of the Vinland Map he spelled his name as Henricus. There was no le in the Latin alphabet. P erhaps the most startling conclusion that can be drawn from the 11th century North American inscriptions is this. The Norsemen reached what is now eastern Oklahoma as early as 1012 A.D. This is only a very few years after Leif Erikson set foot in Vinland. Furthermore, the evidence appears to be conclusive that they were not merely passing through. A total of five runic inscriptions, all having dates that clearly indicate Christian influence, prove that they re~ mained. in the area at least ten years. In order to reach Oklahoma, the Norsemen would have had to navigate southward along the east coast and then sail around the southern tip of what is now Florida and into the Gulf of Mexico. They must then proceed up the Mississippi and Arkansas rivers into the present Oklahoma. The Norsemen of the 11t h century were intrepid seamen, but they were seldom known to travel great distances by land. To this writer it seems extremely unlikely that they would have undertaken to use an overland route. Had they done so, t hey would have had to penetrate about two thousand miles of wilderness t hrough the territories of at least a dozen powerful Indian tribes. The water route, on the other hand, would have been much less hazardous and difficult than the dangerous waters t hat they had already negotiated on their way to Vinland from Greenland. The most logical assumption seems to be that they had set out to sail around lnsula Vinlanda, that is, the island of Vinland. This is the term that Henricus still applied to Vinland over a hundred years later in his Vinland Map. It seems to be almost certain, however, that they never managed to make their way back to Vinland. Had they returned, it is difficult to believe that the exciting story of what they had learned would not have been preserved in t he records. Surely Hemicus would not have called it an island. 20

Chapter 2

THE DEVELOPMENT AND PROCEDURES OF NORSE DATED CRYPTOGRAPHY This chapter contains a quite detailed analysis of the new field of research which has become known as Norse dated cryptography. The basic fact on which it is based is that several dozen runic inscriptions, among the several thousand that wer e car ved from the early 11th to the mid-14t h centuries, have been found to contain hidden dates. The methods that were used to embed these dates in runic inscriptions have a basic similarity throughout. They also show a readily traceable growth and development over the centuries. As might be expected, the development takes different directions in the various geographical areas in which dated cryptography was practiced. The factors of variety in detail, which were always built around a common core of essential cryptographic method, will appear clearly as the discussion proceeds. The day of the year, and the year number, were, without exception, indicated, usually accompanied by repeated confirmations, by the use of the medieval, perpetual 532 year Norse church calendar. The method consisted in calling out from the calendar a series of small whole numbers that specify the date. The clergy of the Roman Catholic church had determined and proclaimed the holy days of the church year in just this way for hundreds of years before the Norsemen turned to Christianity. Norse dated cryptography consisted of concealing, with varying degr ees of care, those numbers that define the date from the calendar in their runic inscriptions. The resulting hidden dates have been discovered in more than forty runic inscriptions. A lone exception is a ver y extensive, and historically important, cryptogram that has been discovered in a Latin text. This is the legends that are adjacent to Vinland and Greenland in the Vinland Map. It is t he original of this map of which Yale University owns a 15t h cent ury copy. For-

21

tunately, t he scribe who copied the legends appears to have made only a single minor mistake. Otherwise, t he cryptogram would have been difficult and even impossible to solve. The reason is that such a cryptogram can tolerate very litt le in t he line of cryptographic errors. They are virtually non-existent in any known cryptogram. The first dated cryptogram was solved by cr yptanalyst Alf Monge in 1963. At that time t he methods, and the very existence, of Norse dated cryptography had been completely forgotten for more than 500 years. Many of t he cryptog rams that have been solved are analyzed in Norse Medieval Cryptogr aphy I n Runic Carvings. The book also contains a full discussion of the principles and practices of dated cryptography. A most intrig uing and historically important fact is that many of these dated cr yptograms have been discovered ir. runic inscriptions from the New England states, Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, in eastern Oklahoma, and in western Minnesota. Their importance in assessing the extent of the exploration, and settlement, of t he North American continent by the medieval Norsemen is clear. A. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC 532 YEAR PERPETUAL CALENDAR. The Norse church calendar, and the method by which it was used to express dates, is rooted deeply in the history of the Christian church. It is an offshoot from the much older 532 year perpetual Roman Catholic ecclesiastical calendar. The latt er had existed , almost without change, for hundreds of year s before the Norsemen had any need for a church calendar. T he perpetual calendar is based on the Julian calendar. In most respects it is similar to t he modern Gregorian calendar which replaced the Julian in relatively recent times. Ther e are the same twelve months, the same number of days in each month, and t he seven day week. However, the perpetual calendar has attached to it an auxiliary table which is known as the Easter Table. In addition, in the calendar proper, two rows of letters and numbers ar e found beneath the days of the months. These are the Dominica! (Sunday) Letters and the Golden Numbers for each da.y of the year. I t is t hese features that make the basic Julian calendar effective, without any change, over a span of 532 years.

22

FIGURE l ·A

THE PERPETUAL EASTER TABLE DOMINICAL 1 " LETTERS _f'"7 Line # l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

$. 10. 11. 12 . 13 . 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

A.D. l.140 1168 1196 1224 1252 1280 1308 1336 1364 1392 1420 916 944 972 1000 1028 1056 1084 1112

7

4

2

6

l

3

5

: : ~ : : : ~ : : : : : : ~ : : : ~ : ~ : : : ~ ~ : : 1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

3

4

5

6

2 11 1 10 19 9 18 8 17 7 16 6

3 12 2 11 1 10 19 9 18 8 17 7

4 13 3 12 2 11 l 10 19 9 18 8

5 14 4 13 3 12 2 11 1 10 19 9

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l o 17 18 19

1 2

3

4

5

6

7 8

l

2

3

4

5 6

l.9

l 10 19 9 18 8 17 7 16 6 15 5

2 11 1 10 19 9 18 8 17 7 16 6

3 12 2 11 1 10 19 9 18 8 17 7

9

Wlll2~14~16Ul8~123456789Wlll2~14~16Ul8

19 1 2

7 8

9 10 11 12 12 8 9 10 11 17 18 19 l 7 8 9 10 16 17 18 19 6 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 5 6 7 8 14 15 16 17 4 5 6 7 13 14 15 16 3 4 5 6 12 13 14 15

9Wlll2~14~16Ul8~

18 8 17 7 16 6 15 5 14 4 13 3

19 9 18 8 17 7 16 6 15 5 14 4

1 10 19 9 18 8 17 7 16 6 15 5

6 15 5 14 4 13 3 12 2 11 l 10

7 16 6 15 5 14 4 13 3 12 2 11

13 14 34 12 13 2 3 11 12 l 2 10 11 19 1 9 10 18 19 8 9 17 18 7 8 16 17

15 16 17 18 19

7 8

56789Wlll2~14~16U

14 4 13 3 12 2 11 l 10 19 9 18

15 5 14 4 13 3 12 2 11 1 10 19

16 6 15 5 11, 4 13 3 12 2 11 1

17 7 16 6 15 5 14 4 13

18 8 17 7 lb 6 15 5 14 3 4 12 13 2 3

9 18 8 17 7 16 6 15 5 14 4

4 13 3 12 2 11 l 10 19 9 18 8

5 6 7 14 15 16 ~ 6 1 ),,4 15 3 5 12 13 14 2 3 4 11 12 13 l 2 3 10 11 12 19 1 2 9 10 11

l2~14~16Ul8~12J456789Wlll2~14~16U18~1

2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 6789W lll2~14~16Ul8~

lll2~14~16U18~1234

In the Julian versions of I.uni- solar perpetual calendars and Easter tables, t he DOMINICAL (Sunday) LETTERS are normally represented by the first seven letters in the alphabet . In this special table, however, the DL's (top lines) for any and all years are indicated by the equivalent numbers 1 to 7 inclusive, i.e. l = the FIRST of the seven DL 1 s; 2 • t he second, etc. (Double numbers are for Leap Years: Top number for January and February onl¥; bottom numbers for March to December inclusive.)

1 8 b

~

I ~

:2

°' ~

In the Easter Table the 532 year-numbers are listed in 19 lines with 28 year-numbers in consecutive order in each. The Norsemen called the lines Rati. It will be noted that 19 t imes 28 is 532. The perpetual calendar which is reproduced in Figures 1, A and B, is. modernized in form. Its numbers are written as decimals so that the calendar is easier to read and to understand. However, its operation is t he same as with the original forms of the perpetual calendar and its Norse church variant. In the Easter Table the Golden Number for that year is substituted for the year number itself. The symbol for the Golden Number for the year is YGN. At the top of the column in which the Golden Number is found is a number which ranges from 1 to 7. This is the Dominical Letter for the years in that column. It is expressed by the s.ymbol YDL. Numbers are used in place of letters in the Easter Table to avoid confusion. The Norse runemasters who constructed dated cryptograms always used YGN and YDL as numbers even though the symbols that were used to express them were very often runes. It will be noted that any of the 532 years can be specified, uniquely, by stating t he Ra.t i, YGN, and YDL. For example, in Figure 1, A, the t hree n umbers that call out the year 1362 A.D. are circled in the Easter Table. This is the year of the Kensington, Minnesota, inscription. The three numbers and their calendrical designations are: Rati = 8, YGN = 14, and YDL = 2. Note that the column of numbers at the left of t he Easter Table indicates the first year in each line. For example, the fir st year in Rati = 8 is 1336. By counting along t he line it will be found that the year 1362 is in the next to the last space. The space is occupied by YGN = 14. The number at the top of the column is 2. This is YDL for 1362 A.D. The Kensington inscription is used here as an examp1e of how t he perpetual calendar can state any year within the 532 year span of the Easter Table. The reason is that, in the Kensington carving, the numbers that express the year, and the day, are written out directly in the text. Therefore, there can be no question about what these numbers are. A more extended discussion of the Kensington cryptogram is, however, deferred to Chapter 5. 24

When the Rati, YGN, and YDL are known, one year, and one year only, is thereby pinpointed. However, a runemaster could not place a tag on each number in his cryptogram so as to indicate whether it is a Rati, a YGN or what not. To do so would ruin the cryptogram. This potential ambiguity the runemaster must always be aware of. It must be r emoved before the cryptogram can be considered acceptable. For this reason a large majority of dated cryptograms use a direct way to state the day and year. These methods are not ambiguous. The Rati, YGN, and other calendrical indicators then serve to confirm this day and year. These procedures will be observed in later chapters. The Kensington runemaster carved the year 1362 directly into his runic text. Thereafter the indicators Rati = 8, YGN = 14, and YDL =2 serve as multiple confirmations of the year. In the longer inscriptions confirmations were often repeated to make sure that what was intended to be conveyed was understood. The Kensington inscription has no less than thirteen references from the calendar to the day and year. In addition, the year is written directly into the text. This leaves no room for doubt except with those who, for whatever reason, do not understand. This quite naturally is, and will no doubt remain, a major problem. Attention will now be turned to the calendar proper. It is illustrated in Figure 1, B. Here also decimal numbers have been substituted for Roman numerals, runes, or arbitrary symbols that were present in the originals. The days of the year in each month have attached to them letters A through G beginning with A on J anuary 1. The letters are repeated in consecutive order throughout the year. These are the Dominica} letters fo r the day of the year. To identify them from the corresponding quantities for the y ear, they are designated as DDL and DGN instead of YDL, and YGN. The first letters, the D, in DDL and DGN refer to the day of the year in the calendar itself. On the other hand, the first letters, the Y in YDL and YGN, refer to the year in the Easter Table. The number that is the YGN (Golden Number for the year) in the Easter Table, do es not change in value when it appears as DGN ('Golden Number for the day) in the calendar. Neither does the YDL (Dominica! Letter for the year) when it appears as DDL (Do·minical Letter for the day in

25

FIGUR E 1-B

THE 532 YEAR PERPETUAL CALENDAR January -

1

D. L, G . N.

A B

-

February D. L.

-

G.N.

2

3

c

4 5 6 D E F

11

19 8

3

D

D E F

G.N .

-

-

B

16

5

c

D E

F

13 2

G

A

10

B

c

18

7

D

E

F

15

4

G

A B

12

c

1

D E

9

G

A B

c

17 6

14

3

F

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~ 15 16 17 lB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 F G A B c D E F G A B C l) E F G A B c D E F G A B c 16 5 10 18 7 11 19 8 15 4 12 1 17 6 13 2 9 ~

1

April D.L.

A

E

D. L. G.N.

-

8

1 2

Ma rch -

-

9 10 11 12 13 lJ.. 15 16 17 lB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

7 G

2

3

1

2

G

A

1 B

2

c

11

6

7

8 D

19 8

16

9 10 11 12 13 lJ.. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 E F G A B c D E F G A B c D E F G A B c D E F 10 18 7 15 4 12 1 17 6 13 2 5 9 ~ 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 B C D E F G A B C D

3

11

Hay -

5

A B C

11

3

D.L.G . N. -

4 G

19 3 4 D

E

19

8 4

8 16

13

5

2

1~15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~15 26 27 28 29 30

10

18

G A B C

D E

F

G A

15 4

12

1

9

7

C D E

F ~

17 6

G A

3

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.1, 15 16 17 lB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 JO J l G A B c D E F G A B c D E F G A B c D E F G A B c D 16 5 10 18 7 12 l 11 17 6 13 2 15 4 14 J 9

5 6 F

5 6

8

June -

1

2

3

D.L. G . N. -

E

F

G A

B

c D E

19

8 16

5

13 2

7

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 J.8 19 20 21 22 2J 24 25 26 27 28 29 J O F

G

A B

c

D E F

10

18

7

15

4

G A

B

12

1

c

D E F

G

17

6

9

A

B

c

14 3

D

E

11

F

July -

1

D. L. G .N. -

G

2 A

19

8

1

2

August D. L .

--

c

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l J lh 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 B

c

16 3

4

D E F

D E

5 6 G

F

G

A

3 4 5 6 7 8

Oct ober -

1 2

D. L. G.N.

A

--

16 5 13 2

N()vember -

1

2

3 4

D

E

F

13

2

Dec ember D. L.

G.N.

-

10

G

10 5 6 A

10

B

A

4

B

c

D

12

1

E

F

G

9

A

B

17

6

c

D

E

F G

A

B

11 19

14 3

18 7 8

c

D

18

7

G

A

B

c

15 4

D E

12

F

1

G

A

B

17

9

c

D E F

6

G

14 3

A

B

c

ll 19

D

E

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 18

3 4 5 6 7 8 B C D E F G A

D.L. G. N.

--

10

D E F G A

13 2

G

15

F

F G A

5

F

7

1

- 16

7

18

September -

c

E

D E

13 2 B

D

18

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

c

D.L. G .N.

2

c

B

5

-

B

10

7 8

8 16

G. N.

A

13 2

5

7

B

c

D

15

4

:;

F G A

12

1

B

9

c

D

E F

17 6

G

A

14 3

B

c

D E

11 19

F

G

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 c D E F G A B c D E F G A B c D E F G A B c 12 1 8 16 5 15 4 17 6 ll 19 7 9 14 3

B

9 10 11 12 l J 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 JO E F G A B c D E F G A B c D E F G A B c D E 15 4 12 l ll 19 8 16 5 17 6 9 14 3

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 JO 31 B c D E F G A B c D E F G A B c D E F G A B c D E F G A 10 18 7 15 4 8 16 5 13 2 12 1 17 6 1.1 19 lJ 9 14 3 F

G A

LAST DAY OF THE NORSE YEAR

the calendar). However, it changes from a numbe·r in the Easter T able to a letter in the calendar. The relation is that 1 becomes A, 2 becomes B, 3 becomes C, etc. This change was made so that, in the calendar, the numbers that express the Dominical Letters would not be confused with the numbers t hat express the Golden Numbers, which are placed immediately beneath them. The Dominical Letters in the Easter Table and in the calenda r are so coordinated that if, for example, YDL for a year in the Easter T able is 2, then each day in the calendar proper, which has the corresponding value of B ( =2), is a Sunday. In the Kensington inscription YDL for the year 1362 A.D. is 2. The DDL for the day April 24 in the calendar is also B ( = 2). Therefore, in 1362 A.D. April 24 fell on a Sunday. This appears to be a second indication that the Kensington inscription was created by a man of the church. It also contains the abbr eviation A VM in line eight. This represents the Latin words Ave Virgo Maria, that is, H ail Virgin Mar y. A VM is a well-known abbreviation for a supplication. It will f urther be noted that about 2/3 of t he days in t he year have a second number attached below the Dominica! Letter in the calendar. These numbers r ange in value from 1 to 19. They ar e also Golden Numbers. They are arranged in a specia l order which is known as the Dionysian Cycle. The cycle is r epeated throughout the year. THE DIONYSIAN CYCLE ----- J -11- 19- 8- 16-5-1 3- 2- 10-1 8- 7- 15- 4-1 2- 1-9- 17- 6- 14----The order of the n ineteen Gol den Numbers in t he calendar by whose h e lp all New Moons f o r the year can be f ound.

The basic function of the Golden Numbers is to quickly point out each day, in any one of t he 532 year s, that is a new moon. For example, it was found that the YGN for the year 1362 was 14. Therefore, each day in t he calendar, which has attached to it the Golden Number 14, that is DGN = 14, is a ne:w moon. The ancient Babylonians were good astronomers. It was t hey who invented the system by which t he new moons could be indicated. Whether, or how, the n ew moon was tied up

28

with the religion of the Babylonians is not important for our purpose. The fact is that the Catholic Church chose to tie Easter Sunday, and thereby other movable holidays, to the first new moon after March 7. This is called Paschal New Moon. It was the Arabs who taught the use of the Golden Numbers to the west. In 325 A.D., at the great church council at Nicaea, the church incorporated the Golden Numbers into its ecclesiastical calendar. The Dionysian Cycle was added about two hundred years later. It was an improvement on the cycle of the Babylonians. With it the error in dating the occurrence of the new moon never exceeds one day. The Roman Catholic church used the Golden Numbers, and the Dominica! Letters to determine the date of E aster Sunday and other movable holidays such as Ascension Day. Even to this day Easter Sunday is defined as the first Sunday after the full moon that follows Paschal New Moon. Attention was called above to the fact that the runemasters stated the year in an unambiguous way. The Rati, YGN, and YDL then ser ved satisfactorily for confirming it. The same problem arose, and was overcome, in pinpointing t he day of the year. When only the Dominica! Letter is known for a given day, there are over fifty other days in the year that have the same Dominica! Letter. Even when the day also has a Golden Number assigned to it, there are still an average of two other days in the year that have the same DDL, and DGN. Therefore, use of only these two calendrical indicators leaves the day ambiguous . The remedy of the runemasters for this situation was to state the day by counting the number of days to the end of t he year. The symbol is ND. The DDL and DGN are then used as confirmations. This leaves no doubt about the day of the year that is meant. One interesting result from using the ND to st ate the day is that a large maj ority of dated cry ptograms have dates that fall in November and December. It was very awkward, not to say impossible, to indicate larger numbers by using the numerical values of runes. Since r unes were used to state the ND in t he 11th and 12th centuries, all dates had to fall late in the year.

29

The abbreviations for the calendrical indicators of the day and year which have been defined above are as follows: TO INDICATE THE YEAR FROM THE EASTER TABLEYGN-The Golden Number for the year. YDL-The Dominica} Letter (number) for the year. Rati-The line in which the year is found. TO INDICATE THE DAY FROM THE CALENDARDGN-The Golden Number for the day. DDL-The Dominica} (Sunday) Letter for the day. ND-Days counted back to the day from Dec. 24. ND-Days forward to the day from Apr. or Oct. 14. (The second use of ND will be explained later.) B.

THE NORSE PRIMSTAV

The first part of the word primstav is from the Latin adjective, primus, which has the meaning "first." It is a reference to the Golden Numbers in the calendar which were considered to be of prime importance. The last part of the word is the Old Norse stav, which is also modern Norwegian. It means a "stick" or a "stave." The runes which represented the numbers in the primstav were usually carved on such a piece of wood. In Figure 2 is shown a reproduction of a well known primstav from Norway, which was carved during the 14th century. The illustration was taken from an authoritative source of information on medieval runes, calendars, and Golden Numbers. The volume is entitled Fasti Danici. It was edited by Ole Worm and published in 1643 A.D. The authority of this work is seldom questioned. All dated cryptograms appear to be based, almost exclusively, on the Norse primstav. Some of t he differences between the two perpetual calendars affect dated cryptography. For example, the Norse year did not end on December 31, but on December 24. This had been the day of a great pagan festival of their heathen ancestors. It is well known that the church tried to induce newly converted peoples to forget their pagan festivals by overlaying them with Christian holidays. Since December 24 was the end of the year, December 25 became both Christmas Day and New Years Day.

30

As an illustration, the 244 days from April 24 in the Kensington inscription are counted to December 24. All dated cryptograms that state the day in this way, and nearly all do, count to the 24th. A second difference between the two forms of the calendar resulted in an a uxiliary method for stating ND. The primstav is not divided into months and weeks. It recognizes only two seasons, summer and winter. The first day of summer was April 14, and the first day of winter, October 14. Such an arrangement of the calendar provides two more days, besides December 24, from which a date could be counted. It should be noted that December 24 is the last da,y of the year. Therefore, the count from this day was always made backward. On the other hand both April 14 and October 14 are the first da,ys of each Norse half year. Therefore, a count which originated with one or the other of these days "''as always made forward. FIGURE 2

A 14th CENTURY NORWEGIAN PRIMSTAV

Perhaps because it is so extensive, the Kensington cryptogram states the date in both ways. It indicates the number 244. This number of days cannot be counted forward from April or October 14. If such a count were made, it would run into the next half year. It indicates that a count of 244 days is to be made backwards from December 24. The date which is so specified is April 24.

31

But the inscription also mentions "10 men red with blood," and "10 men by the sea." A count of ten days forward from April 14 also indicates the date, April 24. This means that there were not necessarily ten men involved in either case. The r unemaster must use the number ten to. confirm the date, April 24. All of the numbers in the Kensington inscription were chosen on this basis. Actually the side of the primstav t hat is shown in Figure 2 represents the winter season from October 14 to April 13. The summer season is car ved. on the other side. Perhaps the most dramatic difference between the calendars is that the Norse version was normally carved in runes on a piece of wood or bone. The runes represent numbers. By contrast, in more southern lands t he calendar was usually written by scribes on parchment. The Norse primstav was much more durable and lasting. The one that is shown in F igure 2, was a pparently intended to be worn about the person suspended by a strap or a chain. It appears t hat no one knows with certainty how soon after the Norsemen turned to Christianity the primstav was invented and came into use. There are, however , two or three hints in dated cr yptogr aphy. In some early examples of cryptograms it appears that a calendar , which had the months marked in it, had been used. Except for these indirect hints, all dated cryptograms that have been solved to date use the special features of the primst av exclusively. This would, however, be quite feasible even if a calendar were used which had the months marked in it. One would simply have to know the differences and proceed according to the Norse calendar. It is nevertheless interesting that as early at 1008 A.D. in Sweden, 1009 A.D . in New England, and 1012 A.D. in Oklahoma, December 24 was alr eady recognized as the last day of the year in dated cryptograms. These are the earliest known examples of hidden dates in runic carvings. Why did the Norse clergy continue to use the perpetual calendar even into the 14t h century? The reason does not seem far to seek. Th ey had good r eason to value the perpetual .features highly. For one thing the calendar needed no changes over a period . of 532 years. This was a great convenience before the age of print ing when a new calendar for each year was unknown.

32

For the purposes of the church there were equally obvious benefits. Any Sunday in any one of the 532 years could be determined in a matter of seconds. By another procedure, the date of Easter Sunday, and of the other movable holidays, could also be found in a short time. This calendar was a truly r emarkable invention which the clergy needed in their professional capacities. C.

THE RUNIC ALPHABETS

Before more progress can be made, it is necessary to learn something about the runic alphabets that were used in the carvings which a re to be discussed. There are two such alphabets. They are reproduced in Figure 3. FIGURE 3

THE OLD GERMANIC 24-RUNE ALPHABET F U Th A R K G W H N I

J

P E R S T B E M L

NG D 0

0 M~ f~DfR< '>(

x xx

x

)< >
< IX x x )( x x 'X x '>< x x x x x x x x )< .X x IX x x x IX x )( x x x~ x x )< x )( :>( x x x xx ~ xx xx xx x x x x: I>< x )< x xxx

14. Runes comb i ned t o reduce count 15 . Single and double points

~ixed

16 . Po i nts employed t o group runes

17. Po i nts cut words into segments l f . Count s of runes forms ser i es

1 9 . Spelling and d i c tion are faulty 2 0 . Counts of r une groups give GNs 21. Counts g ive match i ng K numbe r s 22. Ext r a cuts used as

sign~osts

2 3 . Vert i cal and hor i zontal of f sets 24 . Numbe r series used in acrostic

3W

N .A.

MAES Slri MAES

N .A. VM GE Sfl NORW MAES

NA

spotlighted, so that their numerical values may state the day and the year directly. When th.is was done, it allowed the GNs, the DLs, and the Rati to be used to confirm them. Line 7 names another almost universally used device. Twenty of the twenty-four cryptograms "fuse" two, three, or even four digits, or tvvo-digit decimal numbers, into a four-digit year number. As an example, t he Danish rune for ct has the numerical value 10 and the rune for n has the value 12. When they are "fused" t hey express the year number 1012 A.D. This p rocedure is found in all but one of the cryptograms that are analyzed in these chapters. It is clear that this is not a standard decimal operation. However, th.is knowledgeable use, or rather misuse, of the decimal system need not ca.use surprise. A child who indicates a year by placing numbered blocks in adjacent positions is, after all, doing the same thing. Nor is there good reason to doubt that at least some of the 11th century Norse clergy had learned to use decimals. The decimal system was being taught in the Benedictine monastery schools of Europe as early as 976 A.D. by the renowned, Arab-trained m athematician and scholar, Gerbert. H e became Pope Sylvester II in 999 A.D. The Benedictine schools maintained scriptoria in which they copied books and built up considerable libraries so that the knowledge of the new mathematics had a means to spread rapidly. Its superiority would have been quickly obvious to all. Gerbert was himself a Benedictine. The Benedictine Order was well organized and very powerful in northern Europe during the middle ages. Benedictine monastery schools were famous for their learning. During t he first centuries of this millennium the Benedictines were the librarians, the scholars, and the educators of weste1'11 and northern Europe. It was in the monastery schools of England, France, and Germany that many of t he Norse clergy received their training. Under the circumstances it would be difficult to believe that some of t hem did not learn to use the decimal system. Of course their cryptograms are clear evidence that they did so. The only question appears to be where. The answer to this question may also shed light on the source of the dialects and the alleged "modern" languag·e of some runic inscriptions that contain hidden dates.

46

Having observed this extensive (in geographic area) and centuries old use of the decimal system, one is prepared to accept one of its interesting byproducts. Runes are numbered from one onward. There is no rune whose numerical value is zero. Therefore, when the runemaster was to express a year such as 1009, he faced a problem. The runemaster could indicate only 10 and 9. The zero in the tens place of the number had to be supplied mentally. An interesting, and inevitable, consequence of this method occurs in Maeshowe Number 18. This is Number 8 in Table I. To express the year 1100 A.D. the runemaster did the only thing that he could do. He indicated the number 11. The two zeroes that follow had to be supplied mentally. Of course anyone who wished to solve the cryptogram was not left dangling. The Rati, YGN, and YDL which confirm that the year is 1100, and no other, were supplied. It should be noted that all known cryptograms have year numbers that lie between 1000 and 1400 A.D. This means that all have four digits. This automatically throws out the possibility of combining the 10 and 9, into the number 109, or 910. The confirmation in the form of Rati, YGN, and YDL also excludes them as well as all other years except 1009 A.D. The seven cr yptograms that are checked in Line 8, all have the zero missing in the tens place. In each case t he zero had to be supplied mentally. As was mentioned above, the year is in each case confirmed . Line 9 shows that 19 of the 24 cryptograms. pinpoint the day by stating the number of days (ND) to the end of the Norse year. In each of these cases also the day is confirmed by giving the DGN, when one is assigned to that day, and the DDL. If the runes are grouped, or otherwise arranged in a logical geometric pattern, fewer runes need be used to get the same effect. Line 1 shows that most cryptograms make use of geometry in one fo1m or another. This was especially effective in the brief early 11th century inscriptions because their texts have no meaning. This allowed the runic symbols to be shifted about freely. (See the next chapter.) Later inscri ptions were longer and invariably did have a translatable text. The geometric factor was then largely confined to groupings of runes, and counting the number of

47

,

symbols in the groups. This was sometimes accompanied by horizontal or vertical offsets of the runes. Such geometric hij inks has no place in a normal runic inscription, of course, even though something similar is sometimes found in Scandinavian inscriptions, apparently, for the most part, for decorative purposes. A runemaster would often need a number that is larger than the numerical value of any single rune in order to indicate the number of days before December 24 (ND) . To do this he would arrange to add the values of two runes. This could be done by combining them, or by leaving them separate. In the latter case, special signs or constructions had to· be devised to show that the addition was to be performed. Such cases are checked in Line 11. When the addition is called for by combining the runes, this is checked in Line 12. Examples of both will be found in the next chapter. This completes the list, Lines 5 through 12, of those cryptogra phic features that are used almost always, or at least frequently, over the entire three and a half centuries. It is clear that Norse dated cryptography had a. substantial core of procedures that were maintained over the entire span of its existence as an art. It should be added that, in t he longer inscriptions, runes are most often combined for a different reason. This is to reduce the number of symbols between two points in t he inscription so that the count can be brought down to a desir ed value. Examples of this procedure are checked in Line 14. In longer inscriptions a single rune, whose numerical value refers to the date, could easily be lost. This would be even more true in the case of several runes that were scattered about. This difficulty was avoided by abandoning the use of the numerical values of single runes altogether. Instead, runes were grouped. The number of runes in the group was adjusted so that it was the same as the Rati, YGN, YDL, etc. If, instead of a single number, it was desired to deliver a message that contained many letters, this was done by arr anging a series of such groups of runes in succession. It was, of course, necessar y to adjust the number of runes in each gr oup to the required value to deliver the message. When this had been done, the number series was converted into the message by the use of a so-called conversion-alphabet. This was often

48

a difficult task since the text must retain a plausible and readable translation. The conversion-alphabet normally consisted of a series of consecutive runes in the text itself. Groups of runes that were to be counted were defined in several ways. If only one group was involved, a non-runic cut before and after the group was often used. If there were several groups, the runes in each group could be offset in one of several ways so as to set them apart. When many successive groups were to be counted, the first effort necessarily must be to arrange the words in the next so that they form the correct series of counts. The points that were normally used to separate words in runic inscriptions, would then also define the groups. If the words in the text could not be caused to have the correct number of runes, resort was often made to misspellings by adding, or subtracting runes from the words. The flexible state of spellings in the middle ages made this much less noticeable than it is today. Runes were also combined so that t he number of symbols was lowered.

When all these procedures were still not sufficient to make the counts correct, resort was taken to more drastic methods. Points were sometimes used to cut words into segments instead of separating them, which is their normal function. Single and double points were mixed so that a second count could be made. The runes were first counted between single points. This yielded one series of numbers. A second count was then made between all points, single and double. This series of numbers could be added to the first. These procedures are listed in Table II, Lines 13 to 20. The outstanding example of their use is the Kingigtorssuaq inscription which is analyzed in Chapter 4. Lines 20 and 21 of Table II refer to an ingenious arr angement for stating the day and the year in a single geometric construction. This is to set up two, and in some cases three, pairs of Golden Numbers with a so-called K number attached to each. This construction is non-runic because a Golden Number is not a rune even when a runic symbol is used to represent it. Each pair, when applied to the Dionysian Cycle of the Golden Numbers in the calendar, indicates a number from 1 to 19. These tw'o o·r three numbers, when "fused" in the

49

usual way, form the year number. 1' he K numbers themselves are also fused to give the ND for the day. This was a favorite device, especially in the early Maeshowe inscriptions. The counts of groups of runes are used to indicate the Golden Numbers, and a non-runic symbol was usu ally caused to deliver the matching K numbers. In two inscriptions, Kingigtorssuaq and the No·r um Font (Swedish), the GN and K pairs are combined into a special geometric construction which performs the same function. (See Chapt er 4.)

GN AND K NUMBER PAIRS APPLIED TO THE DIONYSIAN CYCLE K

=7

J

---3-11-19- 8-16-5-1 3- 2- 10- 18- 7-1 5- 4- 12- 1 - 9-1 7- 6-14- 3- 11 --t

GN=ll, K=5, n=.!J

I

GN=15 , K=7 , n=J.i

The indicated year number is 1) - 14 = 1314 A.D. In an actual cryptogram the YGN, YDL, and Rat i will cont'1rm 1314 A.D . and exclude 141) A.D.

P rocedures that are numbered 22, 23, and 24 are used ver y largely in the longer inscriptions. The reason is that they are less likely to be overlooked. The preceding descriptions of the twenty-four cr yptographic procedures that are listed in Table II are often quite sketchy. It could hardly be otherwise. The purpose was to give an overview of the subj ect of Norse dated cr yptography. To have gone into a full explanation of all details would have required sever al chapters. Fort unately, almost a11 of these procedures ar e illustrated in cryptograms that are analyzed in the next four chapters. The most important of them are demonstrated in use repeatedly. Some of the applications are quite spectacular. In SlU111Tu'try, it is clear that there are a large number of inter-relationships among the procedures in these t wenty-four cryptograms. The persistent recurrence of these procedures,

50

many over the full span of three and a half centuries, is striking. What is always kept in mind is to state a day and a year, and to confirm them as many times as the extent of the inscription permitted. In all of this the basic rules were never violated. To do so was to destroy the cryptogram. The details of presentation, however, show development, not only from region to region, but over the centuries. After all, the runemaster wished to intrigue, and to challenge, his colleagues to try to solve his cryptographic puzzle. An art that does not grow, soon loses its appeal and dies. That this unique cryptographic game persisted for at least three and a half centuries, despite handicaps that were very large, attests to its vitality.

51

Chapter 3

FOUR EARLY ELEVENTH-CENTURY NORTH AMERICAN RUNESTONES This chapter contains a discussion of matters that are of great importance to an understanding of medieval Norse explorations and early American history. For example, the theory that the Vinland of Leif Erikson lay in New England is supported, apparently to the point of virtual certainty. There is also direct and what appears to be indisputable evidence that Norsemen reached eastern Oklahoma as early as 1012 A.D. only nine years after Leif is assumed to have reached Vinland. Further more, the evidence shows that they remained in the area for at least t en years. These conclusions had already been drawn when Norse Medieval Cryptography In Runic Carvings was published in September of 1967. Since that time a number of discoveries have been made that strongly reenforce them. They tie together the facts that were known a.t the time of publication in a very pers uasive manner. Specifically, the proof is based on the solution of secret dates in four brief runic carvings. One, which is dated 1009 A.D., is located near Byfield, in Massachusetts. The date is only six years after the discovery of Vinland is assumed to have been made. The thxee other inscriptions a1·e located in eastern Oklahoma. Their year numbers are 1012, 1017, and 1022 A.D. Two of them were discovered in the defiles of the Poteau mountains which lie near the Arkansas border. Of these, one is about two miles out of Heavener, and the other was once a part of a ledge of rock near Poteau, about eleven miles north of Heavener. The third inscription is near Tulsa, the oil capital, about one hundred twenty miles to t he north-west. Photographs of the four inscriptions are reproduced in Figure 4. The first, Byfield Number 1, was discovered by the late Lawrence M. Rogers, the owner of the property on which

52

the inscription is located. About 1943, he took photographs of this and other nearby stones some of which also appear to have inscriptions. All occupy a small plot of ground. The property is now in the hands of his widow, a schoolteacher, who has since remarried. The symbols of Byfield Number 1 vary from about three and a half to six inches in length. They are carved on a relatively rough surface as are the other rock markings that appear to be inscriptions. No rocks with smooth surfaces seem to be available in this area. The variable New England climate, with its frequent freezing and thawing, also seems to have weathered the symbols considerably. It was therefore found necessary to chalk in the cuts in order to photograph them. The original photographs were carefully rechecked by Rogers and Olaf Strandvold in 1948 and found to represent the cuts as they were judged to be on the stone. Mr. Strandvold subsequently used the photograph in a 69 page brochure which he entitled Norse Inscriptions On American Stones. The sponsor of this research, and the brochure, was Magnus Bjorndal, industrialist of Weehawken, New J ersey, a longtime student of Norse sailings to America, and a member of t he boo.rd of the Norwegian-American Historical Association. It was this photograph that was used in Norse Medieval Cryptograms In Runic Carvings. Unfortunately, because of a mistake in the editing of Strandvold's brochure, the photograph was shown upside down in both publications. This did not affect the solution of the cryptogram. The solution does depend on the relative positions of one rune with respect to the other but not on the orientation of the whole. In order to be as certain as possible, the writer visited the site in October of 1968, made a careful inspection of the carving, and photographed it. It is this photograph that is used in Figure 4. The day was dark and rainy, and the chalked lines became unduly wide. However, the cuts were found to be as Strandvold and Rogers had found them twenty-five years ago. By drawing a finger along the cuts their presence could readily be felt. The only symbol that could not be identified along its entire length was the OG rune for o at the left. Most of the symbol is discernible. This includes the crossed legs of the rune. The loop is, however, weathered away in some sections.

53

There seems to be little doubt that the symbol is the OG rune for o. If it is not, the statement of the year 1009, and the two confirmations for the year, YGN = 3, and YDL = 2 are not affected. But the day would be different so that the confirmations for the day would no longer match. This will be explained in more detail in connection with Figure 5. The important fact here is that Roger s and Strandvold identified the symbol as the OG rune for 0 twenty-six years ago. Strandvold knew nothing about the presence of the cryptogram and the fact that the solution would come out perfectly, for the day as well as the year, if this symbol is an 0. The r eason that the carving at Byfield is discussed at some length, and in some detail, is that its year falls within the same decade as the three Oklahoma inscriptions. It is also so identical in cryptographic method that it is difficult to believe that the four were not carved by the same runemaster. This implies that the Massachusetts runemaster became a member of a party of Norsemen t hat eventually, but not more t han three years later, wound up, for whatever strange reason, in what is now Oklahoma. A second reason is that Byfield Number 1 is the only one of the four inscriptions about which there is any reason to question what the shape of any of its symbols may be. It is a fortunate circumstance with the Oklahoma inscriptions that all symbols are cleanly cut and easily read. Heavener Number 1 is the most widely known of the four inscriptions. Mrs. Gloria Farley, a native of H eavene·r , became interested in it in t he twenties when it was still known as "Indian rock". About thirty year s ago she discovered that the symbols were very similar to Scandinavian runes. Meanwhile, authorities on Indian pictographs denied that t he carvings could possibly be of Indian origin. By diligent research Mrs. Farley has determined that the inscription was known to the local Choktaw Indi ans in the 1830s. After 1889, when Oklahoma territory was opened up for settlement by white people, the inscription has been viewed by a number of people who have gone on record to that effect. Meanwhile, it has been "lost" and rediscovered on several occasions. The reason is that it is located in a narrow and damp ravine, under a rock overhang. It has been covered with lichen which partly, and at times wholly, obscured the 56

symbols. This is the r eason for the blotchy appearance of the photograph in Figure 4. The runes are deeply carved in quartz-impregnated sandstone. They are eight to ten inches high a nd are carved at breast height across the flat face of a large rock whose dimensions are ten feet in width, twelve in height, and sixteen inches in thickness. It appears that the rock once fell from the overhang and remained in an upright position. So far as is known, the first widely distributed discussion of the Heavener carving is to be found in a chapter in Atlantic Crossings Before Columbus by Frederick J. Pohl (Norton, 1961). Pohl is the author of several books on pre-Columbian explorations by white men, particularly by the Norsemen, on the North American continent. His account goes into more detail about the Heavener inscription than can be done here. However, in the absence of knowledge of the cryptogram and its exact date, he was not able to determine who carved the inscription or at what time. Pohl also reviews the Heavener stone in an appendix of his latest book, The Viking Explorers (Crowell, 1966). The P oteau carving has a more recent history. In September, 1967, two Poteau junior high school students were hiking in the neighbo1ing mountains. There they discovered an inscr ipt ion on t he horizont al surface of a ledge of rock. This occurred after a heavy r a in a nd flood . The ledge had been clear ed of the soil which had covered t he inscription. Apparently the boys suspected that it was a runic carving. Heaven er and its well known inscription is only a few miles away. But they, as so of ten happens under such circumstances, did exactly what they should not have done. They hurried home to pick up hammer and chisel and rushed back to pry the rock loose from the ledge. When they showed the inscription to their high school principal, he notified Mrs. Farley of the find. It was not many days before Monge had a copy of the carving. The solution t urned out to be quite straight-forward and strikingly similar to the Byfield and Heaven er inscript ions in the construction of its cryptogram. The stone is now preserved in a local museum. No real harm was done by breaking the stone loose before it had been examined by ar chaeologists and photographed. The circumstances are well known, and all who were involved in its discovery are r eliable persons.

57

An interesting byplay resulted from the students' precipitate action. In their haste they cracked the rock that holds the inscription into t hree pieces so t hat the first and second runes were on separate parts. They recovered the piece with the second rune at once, but failed to realize that the first was left behind. Both fissures are visible in Figure 5. The pieces match perfectly as, of course, t hey should. It will be obser ved that the missing first symbol in Poteau is the OG rune for g. It performs two calendrical functions. Its numerical value is 7 so that it confirms the day, November 11, as DDL = 7. The symbol also serves a second purpose in that it indicates that YDL = 6. It is one of six OG runes in the inscription. F or the year 1017, YDL = 6. The absence of these two confi rmations, which is. present in t he other three inscriptions, brought an angu ished inquiry from Monge. This sent the boys scurrying up t he mountain once more. T hey located the missing piece in the rubble below the ledge and everyone was happy. The Poteau symbols a r e about four inches in height. They are not cut as deeply as those at Heavener and Tulsa. However, the carving had apparently been cover ed wit h soil much of t he time since it was carved. There appears to be little weathering and the runes ar e easily read. The Tulsa inscri ption is carved on an isolated ledge of r ock where it had apparently not been observed until quite recently. The record of its discovery is not yet complete, mostly because no one who is very much interested lives in the area. It was photograph ed in 1965 A.D. by a local resident, Joe Shipley. On December 29, 1967, four geologists inspected it at t he invitation of Mrs. Farley. Tulsa is, of course, a major oil center. Geologists, who a re employed in explor ation for oil, live there in considerable numbers. These four knew nothing about runes and were not concerned with the origin of the inscription. However, they were agreed that the inscri ption showed signs of considerable age. The runes are about six inches tall and are, as Figure 4 shows, deeply carved. Whatever weather ing may be present does not prevent reading t he symbols. Of these t here are only seven, but there are ten runes. The third symbol is a combination of three Danish runes, and the fourth contains one Danish and an OG rune. 58

It would be well, here, to observe that the large boulder on which Byfield Number 1 is carved, which is submerged in the ground, probably weighs several tons. Heavener weighs a great many tons. Poteau and Tulsa were both carved into ledges of rock. It can therefore be safely concluded that these inscriptions were carved in the places where t hey were discovered.

A.

THE FOUR SOLUTIONS

In the Byfield inscription the symbols are carved in a more or less circular pattern. There are three OG runes above and to the left, and two very closely spaced Danish runes below and to the right. At one point the Danish runes are separated by no more t han one quarter inch. They were clearly meant to be taken together. Th e OG rune at the left is separated somewhat from the other two OG runes. This may have been deliberate because it performs a different function from the others. The rune at the left states the day of the year. The two other OG runes confirm this day by giving its DDL and DGN. It is also possible that the rune at the left is separated because the surface of the stone did not permit it to be carved adjacent to the others. The roughly circular pattern seems to have its origin in the fact that the stone did not provide a flat ar ea of sufficient extent to carve five symbols in a straight line. In any event there are two Danish runes in one group and three OG runes in another. The fact that the Danish runes are drawn first in Figure 5 is arbitrary. It does not affect the sol ution in any way. However, it makes it easier to point out the numerous basic similarities in the construction of the Byfield cryptogram and the other t hree. The solutions, as they are analyzed in Figure 5, will be found, after a little study, to be quite elementary. Therefore, only an outline of the construct ions, which will serve as a guide, will be given here. The solutions are developed later in the discussion, bit by bit, by comparing one with the other. This is done in order to demonstrate their almost identical constructions.

In each inscription two Danish runes always state the year. Their numerical values are "fused" in order to form the year number. This procedure is very common. It is listed 59

FIGURE 5

FOUR CLOSELY RELATED NORTH AMERICAN NO. l ~24 Nov. 1 009) ~ y F IE L D YGN = J

YDL "" 2

A

I

I

0

l ·~

'1

I

..:i..

~ (0) 1009 A. D.

rh

5

A

y,. i

I

YGN =

5 +

0

M

11

6

ffiN

DDL

1 = 6

o

t

~ 11 Nov. 101 2)

b

AI

T

x1 ~

( 11 Nov . 1017)

E

I

·-

A

YG,·

J (weeks)

ffiN

4J ND

YDL = 6 (OG RUNES)

15

RATI

I L! L

~

l:i.

NQ 1

l

( KI)

s

6~ Re.ti

16 YGN

( SAS)

I

Th

I M~ .u.f t>

~

~

1

.JL

4 I DGN ND = 4)

T EAU

0

A

G

1

Re.ti = 15

= 4) P

7 DDL

No.

~f>K th

This is equally obvious in the four 11th century cryptograms from the North American continent that were analyzed in Chapter 3. The last chapter, in particular, provides irrefutable evidence of the independence of dated cryptography from these disciplines. (See the two solutions in Chapter 6.) B.

THE SOLUTION

It was stated in the introduction to this chapter that the solution consists of two independent parts. The first part reveals that the day of the inscription is May 7, and that the year is 1244 A.D. In the second part, a series of twenty-five numbers that resulted from counts of groups of runes, is converted into a message. This is the long-sought missing ending to the text. It completes the meaning of the text, and also reveals the name of the r unemaster.

1.

THE DAY AND THE YEAR

For the sake of maximum simplicity the route will be traced here that the runemaster had to take in order to indicate his intended day and year. The procedure requires that he start with the day. This was May 7. A count in the calendar shows that there are 231 days from May 7 to the end of the Norse year, December 24. Therefore, he established three groups of runes with 2, 3, and 1 symbols in each. He had thereby indicated that ND for the day was 231 days. This is a well known procedure in Norse dated cryptography. See the lower part of A in Figure 8. It should be noted that the number 231 is indicated regardless of what types of symbols the three groups contain. It is the Golden Numbers that the groups contain that deliver the numbers 12, 4, and 4 which indicate the year 1244 A.D. This r esult is ther efore entirely independent of the way that the day was indicated. This is so because, to state the year 1244, it does not matter how many symbols the three groups contain. One symbol in each group would do as well as two or three. This is obviously important because, as will be seen shortly, it permits the ambiguous statement in the text, Saturday before Ascension Day, to be checked directly by two entirely independent means. In order to state the year, the problem of the runemaster was as follows. He already had the three so-called K numbers,

81

2, 3, and 1 to build on. What Golden Numbers must he now pair with each K number? The object is that, when these three pairs are successively applied to the Dionysian Cycle in the calendar, the n umbers 12, 4, and 4 will be generated. Appropriate sections of the Dionysian Cycle are shown in Part B of Figure 8, and the pairs of GN and K numbers are applied to them. Part B shows that the required pairs are GN = 15, K = 2; GN = 18, K = 3; and GN = 15, K = 1. For example, it is the function of the first pair of GN and K numbers to deliver the number 12 from the Dionysian Cycle. The number 12 is first located in the Dionysian Cycle. Since K = 2 in the first pair, a count of two is made from the 12 go'i ng to the l eft. The number so indicated is 15. This is the required Golden Number. The GN and K pair is therefore GN = 15, K = 2 to deliver the number 12 by counting two to the 1ig ht. The same procedure will establish the second and third pairs of GN and K numbers. The next step was to actually carve two symbols with GN = 15, three with GN = 18, and one with GN = 15 on the stone. They must be carved at the upper and the lower ends of connecting links. The links must differ from group to group so that one group can be distinguished from its neighbors. Part A shows what is actually carved on the stone. Part B of Figure 8 shows that, when the three pairs of GN and K numbers are so applied to the Dionysian Cycle, the result is the Numbers 12, 4, and 4. They designate the year as 1244 A.D. by a well-known procedure. It is no·w clear why these six symbols were called nonrunic. Golden Numbers are not runes. They are numbers even though at times they are represented by runic symbols. For example, the Golden Number 15, in groups one a nd three is r epr esented by the Danish r une for m whose numerical value is 15. This will be discussed later. The means are now at hand for checking out the second independent and unambiguous confirmation that Saturday before Ascension Day, in 1244 A.D., was May 7. (The first was ND = 231.) Since the year is now known to be 1244, it is relatively simple to determine Easter Sunday for that year. By definition it is the first Sunday after Paschal Full Moon. Paschal Full Moon follows Paschal New Moon by thirteen 82

days. Paschal New Moon, by definition, is the first new moon after March 7. It will be recalled from Chapter 2 that all the days of any year that have the same Golden Number, DGN, as t he year, YGN, is a new moon. The Easter Table of the calendar shows that the Golden Number for the year 1244 was 10. In the month of March in the calendar the first day, following March 7, that has Golden Number 10, is March 14. This is Paschal New Moon. Therefore Paschal Full Moon fell on March 27 in the year 1244. In the perpetual calendar every day that has the same Dominica! Letter as the year is a Sunday. In the year 1244 the Dominica! Letter was 2. This corresponds to B in the calendar. The first day after March 27 with Dominica! Letter B is April 3. This was Easter Sunday. Ascension Day follows Easter Sunday by forty days. Forty days after April 3 is May 12. Since Ascension Day falls on a Thursday, the Saturday before Ascension Day is five days earlier. This is May 7. Therefore, the phrase, Saturday before Ascension Day, is confirmed a second time, by entirely independent means, to ha1;e been May 7 in 1244 A.D. In accordance with well established tradition the runemaster was not satisfied with these confirmations. As a matter of fact he added eight auxiliary confirmations. They reinforce May 7, 1244 as the day and year in a very substantial manner. They are listed and discussed below. 1. The text states that the day was a Saturday. This can be checked by the Dominica! letter for the year. The Dominica! Letter for the year 1244 was 2. Therefore, every day in that year which has Domini cal Letter 2 ( = B) is a Sunday. The calendar shows that May 8 is such a day. Therefore the day before May 8, which was May 7, was a Saturday. There is only one chance in seven that any given day will be a Saturday by accident.

2. The two ladderlike symbols before lines one and two in the inscription have three and four rungs respectively. They have usually been described as mere ornaments. It is now clear that they were intended to represent the numbers 3 and 4, that is, the 3rd day of the 4th month, which is April 3, and which was Easter Sunday in 1244 A.D. 3.

The runemasters were always trying to attain maxi83

mum cryptographic efficiency. They t ried to ma.ke a symbol serve as many uses as possible. This was well illustrated in the early 11th century cryptograms that were analyzed in Chapter 3. Furthermore, in the longer inscriptions, the cryptography must be concentrated as much as possible so that it will not be overlooked. This is outstandingly the case in Kingigtorssuaq. The two ladders serve no less than t hree additional cryptographic functions. Two of these involve the two digits, 3 and 4, combined into the decimal number 34. This calls attention to the fact that there are exactly 34 runes in the first line in the inscription, and raises the question as to what significance this might have. The answer is that there are exactly 34 days between the two most important days in the inscription. These are Easter Sunday, and the day of the inscription, May 7. The number 34 from the two ladders therefore also calls attention directly to the number of days between these two dates. The fourth use of the two ladders as confirmations arises from the fact that the left hand rail of the ladder with four rungs is free of the remainder of the ladder. Those who have commented on this have concluded that, in view of the precision with which the inscription as a whole is carved, this is not likely to be an accident. But, of course, the reason that it is free was not known. The reason for this construction is as follows. The single free r ail represents the number 1. If the symbol had been runic it would have represented the rune i with the numerical value 9. But it is not runic. The right hand rail equally repr esents the number 1. However it has attached to it the four rungs. This raises the value to 5. It is no accident t hat the DDL for the day, May 7, is 1, and the DGN is 5. The nonrunic symbol before Line 2 confirms it in both respects. 4. Attention has already been called to the fact that there are 34 runes in the first line of the inscription, and its significance. How are these 34 runes isolated so that they are set apart? The answer is that they are located between the two ladder s in the inscription. It was not, however, possible to carve the ladder, which has the four rungs, at the end of line one as the runemaster might have preferred. The reason is that the two ladder s must remain in close proximity. Only in this way could t hey perform

84

the other functions that were assigned to them. In the running continuity o.f the inscription the 34 runes are nevertheless bounded by the two ladder-like symbols. 5. Another, quite inconspicuous, but apparently authentic confirmation, that Easter Sunday fell on April 3, and that there are 34 days from that day to May 7, is also evident. Attention is called to the diminutive size, relatively speaking, of the arms at the lower left of the third and fourth of the six non-runic symbols at the end of line three of the inscription. (See Figure 4.) Again, in view of the high precision with which this inscription is carved, this is very unlikely to be an accident. This is another reminder that Easter Sunday was the 3rd day of the 4th month, and that there are 34 days from Easter to May 7, the day of the inscription. This adds up to a total of ten confirmations that the ambiguously stated day, Saturday before Ascension Day, was May 7. Of these, two are direct, unambiguous, and entirely independent. A third is equally unambiguous, also independent, but indirect. This is the one in which the text specifies that the day of the inscription fell on a Saturday. The other seven form a closely knit complex which must have been the delight of the runemaster who managed to construct it. They revolve about the two ladderlike structures, and include also the third and fourth of the six non-runic symbols, and the 34 runes in the first line of the inscription. This is a phenomenal performance. The runemaster observed the principle of concentrating cr yptographic details to the highest degree. One can not escape the feeling that he was fortunate in his choice of the day, May 7, as his date. Some days lend themselves to great detail in confirmations much more readily than others. Could it be that the runemaster chose his day for this very r eason? It is not unlikely. After all, the day appears to have had no particular religious significance. The religious significance of the Kingigtorssuaq inscription lies, of course, in the fact t hat the date is tied up with Easter Sunday and Ascension Day. This was May 12 in 1244 A.D. May 7 may well have been selected simply because it was easy to confirm in the calendar by special non-runic symbols. and markings. A brief examination of the construction of the six non85

runic symbols is in order before the discussion of the date is concluded. H will be recalled that, while some of the number s at the upper and lower ends of these symbols are represented by runic symbols, they are not runes in any sense of the word. They are Golden Numbers and as numbers they can be expressed by any appropriate symbols. Therefore, it would, for this reason alone, be highly unlikely that the links that connect them are runic. That thes~ connecting links are not r unes can be seen from Part C of Figure 8. Here the links that connect t he Golden Numbers have been removed. In the first and third g roups it is seen that the Golden Number 15 is represented, above and below, by the Danish rune for rn. It will also be observed in Figure 9, Line 15, Columns 1 and 2, that the rune for rn can be written in its normal position, or inverted, at least when it is used to represent a Golden Number. In the six non-runic symbols the Golden Numbers are all written both in their normal positions and inverted . Figure 9 is a reproduction of a much quoted page from an a uthoritative work on medieval calendars, runes, and Golden Numbers. It is entitled Fasti Danici, and it was authored by Ole Worm in 1643 A.D. Its authority in Golden Numbern and calendars is generally unchallenged. Part C of Figure 8 also demonstrates that the remaining symbols, above and below, in the second group of the nonrunic symbols, are the Golden Numbers 18. A check in Line 18, of Figure 9, confirms this. It will be noted that the arms of the symbols for Golden Numbers 15 and 18, in Figure 9, ar e identical in shape. In the six non-runic symbols they are also quite similar even though they are in neither case identical with those in Worm. Considerable latitude was exercised jn such matters. Clearly, the similarity of the arms of the Golden Numbers 15 and 18, in Figures 7 and 8, does not mean that they are the same symbol. They both find their counterparts in Figure 9. Part A in Figure 8 shows that, in group one, the symbols for the Golden Numbers that are below are offset to the r ight from those that are above. In group thr ee they are offset to the left in order to distinguish group one from group three. Had not the symbols been offset, the connecting links would have been single vertical strokes. They could therefore have been

86

FIG UR E 9

1 1

2

3 4 5

6

7 8 9 10

r

fl p ~ ~ J

2

-.J h

4>

11 t

18

19

.rh 1'

VI VII

l

2

17

A ~

B

'Y

II JIf JV

A..

'

l

t f

.

+-i1

.

't

t 1 ~

*

1?

...... -~

v VIII lX

••

..+

v

I

•• • •• •• •• /\..

~

14 16

•

']

13 15

r

p

6

5

:+: .. ~ ~

~

:r:

x

XI XII

xnr

XN

xv

XV1

XVII

xvm

XlX

A PAGE FROM WORM'S F ASTI DANI CI

confused with the Danish rune for i. As it is they have a slight r esemblance to the Danish s. But the runemaster made efforts to erase this effect in group one by running the sides of the acute angles behind the apex of the angles. No rune for s is ever written in this way. ln group 3 the sides of the angles come to a sharp apex, but they are right a ngles instead of acute as they are in the normal symbol for the rune s. There also seems to have been a deliberate attempt to make the connecting link in group three distinct from the two links in group one.

87

C. THE SECRET MESSAGE Kingigtorssuaq contains the earliest poly-alphabetic conversion cipher that is yet known among dated cryptograms. This means that the secret message is deliver ed by means of two successive conversions in place of one. Fortunately, it does not appreciably complicate the solution. One basic fact about the Kingigtorssuaq secret message is that t he runemaster found that his inscription was too brief. He could not generate the n umber of count s of groups of runes that were needed. H e ther efor e arrcinged to count aU runes twice! It was this decision that led him into the extensive violations of the rules for normal nrnic writing. This involved, among other things, a startling series of departures from a proper use of points to separate words. It also accounts for the extraordinar y number of combined runes. I t is, of course, true that other runemasters found it expedient to fall back on these special procedures at times. But nowhere have these maneuvers been used so freely - or so effectively. COMBINED RUNES IN KINGIGTORSSUAQ

~

LN

+~~m~ 1\ N~-fl 'H

ON

NN TO TAR SO

AU

RI

TA

AR

TA

What was done, and what was accomplished, is illustrated in Figure 10. The runic symbols, as they appear in the inscription, ar e r eproduced in Lines 1, 2, and 3 of the figure. Below each rune is a transliteration into Latin letters. The runes that are combined are so indicated by a bar below the Latin letters. Vertical lines ar e dr awn between the words. This makes it more easy to s~ where and how the rules for the use of points have been violated. For example, the name sigvaths :son :r is cut into three parts by two sets of double points. Likewise, the last word in Line 2, laugardag-in, is sliced into two segments by a misplaced single point. Otherwise the points are confined to spaces between words where they properly belong. However,

88

FIGURE 10

THE SECRET MESSAGE

mh ~ R·:r~ r~ ~ r

'·~~~RIP 1:·:~ I ~ ~:f ~ rm1 Bo

KEN~

1 TH 1l o s

~NIL L.11 G ~Ro

2

AG 1

1'l

FY

L

R G" G

~2u. G

THE RUNES SEPARATORS, ANO COUNTS Of SYMBOLS IN KING IGTORSSUAQ

B H L 0 T• U V

4.

7 i l LJ

( NUMBER SER IES)

6 D E 0 K R Y 0 U

A

B

5-10-2-19-12-6-11 -5-6-6-7-3-1 -2-6-9-2-6-5-9-2-5-12-7~ ~ .N.

2

1 3

2

1 3

2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 } 2 1 3 2 1 3 2

1 3 2

~ K•231

5. (G. N. IN THE CALENDAR) ~ 3-11- 19-8-16-5-13- 2-10-18-7- 15-4-12-1-9-17-6-14-}-11-19-- ETC. 6. (LINE 4 SERIES AFTER CONVERS ION) 2-18-7-16-1-11- 8-13-11- 3-15-8-17-10-11-6-10-11-2- 17- 7- 2-1-12-3 7 . (THE FIRS T 19 RUNES IN LINE 1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

$1~

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

I rR' I rh1~JJ1

~R~

r

8. (CONVERS ION Of LINE 6 BY LINE 7) 2 18 7 16 1 11 8 1} 11 ' 15 8 17 10 11 6 10 11 2 17 7 2 1 12 }

r1! tt11

!1~1! ~~~~~1r~ ! rtP.r

LOS NE A ISAN OIRVAR "-- (A) WAY THROUGH (THE) ICE.• OIRVAR

VALRSLETHN VALRSLETHN.

it is seen that single and double points are mixed. There are also two cases in which points are omitted entirely. One of these is after the word gagndag at the end of Line 2. It might look like a simple case of forgetfulness, but it would ruin the cryptogram if the points were inserted, as they are after both Lines 1, and 3. The second example of omitted points is

89

between the last two words in the inscription, ok, and rydu. What was accomplished by this spate of combined runes and misused points? As the slang saying goes, plenty! Three lines that are numbered 1, 2, and 3 will be found at the upper end of Figure 10. They contain reproductions of the eighty-eight rnnes in the three lines of the Kingigtorssuaq text. Of these eighty-eight runes twenty-three are combined. As a result, the number of separate symbols is reduced to seventy-six. This is an essential part of the construction. Above each of the three Lines 1, 2, and 3 are other lines that are, in each case, marked with the same letter A. Likewise, below Lines 1, 2, and 3 are corresponding lines that are each marked with the letter B. It is these two sets of three lines, A and B, that deliver the secret message. It will be noted that the three lines that are marked A contain a total of nine numbers. These numbers are the counts of symbols between successive single points in Lines 1, 2, and 3. In making these counts double points were ignored. Furthermore, combined runes were counted as only a single symbol. The nine numbers are transferred to Line 4, below, so that they become the first nine numbers in the line. In the lines that are marked B, there are a total of sixteen numbers. These also represent counts between successive points in the runic text of Lines 1, 2, and 3. However, these are counts, not of symbols, but of individual runes. In this case all runes are counted separately whether they are combined with other runes or not. Furthermore, the counts are made between all points both single and double. The counts in the three lines that are marked B become the last sixteen of the twenty-five numbers in Line 4. It is these twenty-five numbers that eventually deliver the twentyfive letter runic message that completes the meaning of the text of Kingigtorssuaq. In order to deliver the message, the runemaster arranged to convert the numbers in Line 4 twice. The first conversion is initiated by assigning to each of the twenty-five numbers the status of Golden Numbers. To each is attached a suitable K number. The twenty-five pairs of GN and K numbers are then successively applied to the Dionysian cycle of Golden Numbers in the perpetual calendar. Each pair in turn generates a new number. The procedure is exactly the same as was illus-

90

trated in Figure 8 above. In t hat case three pairs of GN and K numbehs indicated the three numbers 12, 4, and 4 which together formed the year number 1244 A.D. In the previous paragraph it was stated that the first conversion resulted in a new series of twenty-five numbers. This series of numbers is thereupon changed over into runic letters by the use of a runic conversion alphabet. It will be shown below that this "alphabet" is actually a portion of the runic text. These procedures may seem confusing at first. But this is mainly because of their novelty. They are actually quite simple. The details of the procedures will be retraced in more detail in the paragraphs which follow. Those who have a feel for such things, and have given it some thought, will realize that the second set of counts, those in Lines B, had to be arranged and counted first. Without moving any points, but by changing certain of the double points into single points, and by combining some runes, the counts in Lines A were subsequently set up. This did not disturb the counts in Lines B. The whole construction was somewhat difficult, and took both persistence and ingenuity, but was by no means impossible. The course of the solution consists in performing the conversions of the series of twenty-five numbers in Line 4 through to Line 8. It will be recalled that, in the discussion of the non-runic symbols, in the first half of the solution, the K numbers, 2, 3, and 1 were paired with suitable Golden Numbers. When the pairs were applied to the Dionysian Cycle in the calendar , this led to the numbers 12, 4, and 4. They formed the year number 1244 A.D. Exactly the same procedure is followed in Line 4 of Figure 10. However, this time there are twenty-five Golden Numbers. Therefore, the K numbers must be repeated over and over until all the Golden Numbers are paired with a K number. The K numbers are applied by starting from the right. This is what is normally thought of as the reverse order. This was a matter of choice with the runemaster. For the sake of convenience, the Dionysian Cycle is reproduced in Line 5. The application of the GN and K numbers in Line 4 to the cycle in Line 5, proceeds exactly as it did in Part B of Figure 8. The conversion of the third pair, GN = 2, and K = 3 is illustrated in Line 5.

91

The final result of the twenty-five conversions is the twenty-five numbers in Line 6. While Line 6 has all the outward appearances of a set of arbitrary numbers, this is misleading. A second conversion remains to be made. This is accomplished by the use of a so-called conversion alphabet. Such conversion alphabets are found in a number of dated cr yptograms, notably in the Vinland Map. The VM cryptogram is a close relative, and probably an ancestor, of the one in Kingigtorssuaq. The simplest conversion alphabet may have been to use, for example, the Danish runic alphabet. However it has only sixteen symbols whereas the largest number in Line 6 is 18. The runemaster chose for his conversion alphabet the first nineteen runes in the first line of the inscription. They are reproduced in Line 7, and are numbered for convenience. Over the years there have been many conjectures as to the meaning of the two points in the circle of the rune for e, which is the first s ymbol in the first line of runes. This same rune occurs three other times in the Kingigtorssuaq text, but only this one has the two points. The purpose of the points is now clear. It is to identify the first rune in the conversion alphabet. The conversion formula itself is quite simple. For example, t he first number in Line 6 is 2. This means that the rune in the 2nd position in Line 7 is to be brought down to the first position in Line 8. This happens to be t he rune for l, and it is the first of the twenty-five letters in the secret message. The twenty-five runes in Line 8, transliterated into Latin letters, and grouped into medieval Norse words, read as follows : " .. .losne a isan, Oirvar Valrslethn." This is nearly perfectly spelled according to t he dictionaries. It translates as: " .. (a) way through (the) ice. Oirvar Valrslethn." The runemaster was, of cour se, Valrslethn. The full text of Kingigtorssuaq now reads : Elnikr Sigvathson, and Baanne Tortarson, and Enrithi Osson on the Saturday before Ascension Day, built these cairns and cleared a wciy through the ice. O'irvcir Valrslethn. The addition, which is in italics, clearly makes sense out of the whole inscription. It also is appropriate from the point of view of meteorology. There was very likely ice still covering the water along the shorelines in May, which had to be cleared 92

in order to reach navigable water. Finally, it answers t he question which had been asked over the decades as the inscription was being studied: How could the runemaster find it in his heart to leave out his own name after he had laboriously carved the names of three companions? There have been heavy-handed attempts to deny that losne a isan is Old Norse. In fact the statement was t o the effect that there was not the slightest r esemblance. Perhaps no further comment is necessary. Any Old Norse dictionary will show that the pref erred form for the noun losne is losna. It means a way, a path, or an opening. The second word, the adverb ci, is the correct form. It means through. The accepted dictionary spelling for the plurual noun isan is isar. It refers to an expanse of ice. This is presumably what t he message is referring to. As runic inscript ions go, this is about as close to perfection, according to the dictionary forms, as one is likely to get. H owever, as we shall see, there are many reasons to expect far from perfection. One of these reasons is that dialects were necessarily prevalent in the far-flung domains of the Norsemen. This might be especially true in Greenland which was distant, and seldom visited. Do the dictionaries, which are based on incomplete remnants of the language reflect all of these dialects? The answer is clearly no. There is reason to believe that the runemaster may have been forced to accept something less than perfection in spelling out the words by means of his double conversion. If t his is so, and it may never be proved one way or the other, one t hing must be remembered. The runemaster was not trying to satisfy sceptical 20th century runologists. His need was only to be understood by his contemporaries, a nd in particular his language and cryptogr am-wise colleagues. To ask more than this now is to set up false standards. A third reason for expecting less than perfection is that, in the 13th century, which was before the age of printing, there wer e no aids to correct spelling. Each scribe or runemaster had to use t he symbols that his experience with the language and his sense of hearing suggested to him most closely corresponded to the spoken sound as he knew it. When to this is added the fact that the Danish runic alph abet did

93

not have enough runes to express all the sounds of the medieval Norse language, it is clear that a runemaster had many problems and handicaps. There was no such a thing as standardized medieval Norse. A good illustration of this situation is the result of a survey that my coauthor, Monge, made last year. He collected all the transliterated runic spellings from two books on Scandinavian runic inscriptions by two of the finest scholars in the field. They were De Danske Runeinskrifter by Hans Brix (Danish), and Runeinskrifter I Sverige, by Sven B.F. J ansson (Swedish). Monge found that these scholars had come across no less than twenty-nine different spellings of the word aeptir, which means after. Almost unbelievably, the spellings include such extreme variations as the following: abtir aeftir afatr aft aftir aift aiftir at auft auftr

efr eft eftar eftir eftr eptir etir f tir haft iaft

ift iftir iftr iftri itir ufter uftir yfir yfti

These spellings do not come from inscriptions that are either suspected or known to be cryptograms. They are believed to be normal runic inscriptions. Under these conditions to complain about the e in losne or the n in isan is not supportable. Relatively speaking, losne a 'isan appears to be a paragon of perfection. It is certain that it could not possibly be misunderstood by a 13th century Greenlander. That is the only applicable test. As for t he name of the runemaster, Oirvar Valrslethn, Monge thinks that he can prove that the inclusion of the i in Oirvar was forced upon him by the cryptogram. Whether t his is so or not, there is a medieval Norse name Orvar in the lists of medieval names. However, who can say that the GreenJanders did not pronounce the name with the i or that it was not the impression of the runemaster that it should be spelled

94

in this way. No one will deny that, in the meager lists of medieval Norse names that now exist, many variations in the spellings may have been lost. It is probably equally certain that many names have not survived at all. The matter of the secret message is discussed here in some detail. This is because, for the first time, the solution of the cryptogram in Kingigtorssuaq does enter the domain of Old Norse. However, it depends on Old Norse in only a quite elementary way. The preceding analysis does not seem to leave any doubt that the words, losne a isan, are acceptable medieval Norse. On the other hand this 'is the only part of the solution of the cryptogram in which runology or linguistics is in any way involved. As a result, it can not be judged on such grounds. This is also quite obvious from another point of view. In spite of the fact that Kingigtorssuaq was known to contain a cryptogram, these disciplines were unable to provide the tools for solving it.

95

Chapter 5

THE KENSINGTON CRYPTOGRAM This famous runic inscription has been t he subject of intermittent controversy since it was unearthed near Kensington in western Minnesota in 1898 A.D. During the last decade the arguments seem to have increased even while the issues about its discovery appear, if anything, to have become more clouded. Until the extensive dated cryptogram, which its inscription har bors, was discovered in 1965, by my coauthor of the original book on the subj ect of dated cryptography, Alf Monge, there did not seem to be any prospect of relief from a kind of uneasy stalemate. This is not t o say t hat the writer personally believed that a stalemate existed. He had concluded some years ago that the evidence clearly pointed to authenticity for the inscription. However , the consensus of those who have reasoned opinions, based on what appear to them to be relevant fact s, should control in such matters. Of prejudice and the protecting of previously taken positions this discussion has had an ample supply. This condition, unfortunately, still exists. The stone was discovered near Kensington in west-central Minnesota by Swedish born farmer Olof Ohman as he was r emoving trees in order to clear land for cultivation. Ohman's method was to dig around the tree so t hat he could cut off t he main roots below ground level. When he pulled the tree down with a winch, the stump and the amputated roots followed. In this way the felling of the tree and grubbing the stump were accomplished as a single operation. In the early part of No·vember in 1898 Ohman was in the process of removing an aspen. Its trunk had a diamet er of about eight to t en inches. As the tree came down something quite unusual happened. A fl at stone of r oughly rectangular shape, which weighed over 200 pounds, \.Vas held so tightly in the two main roots of the tr ee t hat it was raised on edge when the t r ee came down. 96

FIGURE ll

THE KENSI NGTON CARVING

FIGURE 12-A

~

1

•

WORDS

?:Y©ltR:9~:ff:~~RR~t1=g9: 8 8

2

GOTER GOTHS

OK 22 AND 22

NORR:r.EN

4

~WRWEG IA~S

!=9bPX~tl~+V'XRp:V'R~=

•

•

PO ON 2

•

0 P DAGE L S E F A R D F R0 JOURNEY OF EXPLORATION FROM 3

\}1111X1?=~f=o/+~t=~J:

•

4

•

WI N L A N D 0 F W E S T W I VINLAND OVE R THE WEST. ifE 4

·

tXP+=IX~ tR : o/fp = f=~~f'XR=fi: HADE .r.-:ADE

s.

wr

•

•

f:}9RR: fR~:pt1~=~1tt: 6 •

RISE JOURNEY

NORR NORTH

FRO DENO FRO M THIS

STEN STONE

WAR WENT

OK AND

FIS KE EN DAGH FISHED ONE DAY.

1•

ltPTIR AFTER

KOM HEM FAN 10 CAME HOME (WE) FOUND 10

~.AN

R~DE

MEN

RED

Xr= g f 9P: ~ ~= P+ ? AV M: =

WI TH •

ONE

6

AF

9

2

s.

EN

r 1: ~9 r: *t~: rxt=r:~Xf:R$?f: • WI WE

0

SKLEAR SLIDES

2

o/ j:o/X R:9~: r11~t:f}:p)(~txg1 IR= WE

1

WED BY

CAKP

pX~~:R I~ DAGH DAYS

6·

LltGER

BLOD BLOOD

OG AND

DED DEAD.

AVE

~~R IA,

rRX1/~t:Xr:Jtf~: FRliELSE SAVE (US)

AF

FROV

s.

A V M

ILLU .

EVIL .

3•

FIGURE 12-8

LDIE 10

•

WORDS

tXR=f:rx1~=rf rxr+t=Xr=~ lli.R 10 ?l.ANS WE HA.WET (WE) HAVE 10 MEN BY (THE) SEA

11

•

)(

6

•

A'l' SE TO LOOK

g1 IR:o/9Rf:~~ Ig:[P~ rX~* =R 11 t: s.

lPTIR AFTER 12 •

+:

WORE OUR

SKIP 14 SHIP(S) 14

rR,~: ~tf~=@t:XtR:

FROM DENO OH AHR FROM THIS ISLA.ND. YEAR

DAGH RISE DAYS JOURNEY

rf pF:

4

1 3 6 2 3 b 2.

~

This made it necessary to separate the roots from the stump at a point above the stone. When this had been done, not only the stone but two main sections of the roots were freed. They had the shapes of right angled elbows. It was found that their inner surfaces, not surprisingly, had been flattened against the surfaces of the stone. This could only happen if the roots had been growing around the stone over a considerable number of years. In brief outline this is the way that the Kensington stone came to light. Before it was unearthed it had been covered with a layer of soil that varied from about three to six inches in depth. This may explain the relatively small amount of weathering of the carved areas. (See the photograph, F igure 11.)

The first nine lines are carved on the upper two-thirds of one side of the stone. Three additional lines are cut along one edge. It would appear that the stone had been set vertically in the ground in the manner of many runestones in Scandinavia. This much of the story of the discovery of the Kensington stone has been told in order to help orient the reader. In Figure 12 A, are copied lines 1 through 9 from the face of the stone. Below each line is a transliteration of the runic symbols into Latin letters. This is followed by a translation 99

•

of the text into English. Lines 10, 11, and 12 from the edge of the stone are similarly reproduced in Figure 12 B. It is useless to proceed farther into the murky mess that the story of the discovery of the Kensington carving has become. Hjalmar Rued Holand carried the burden of proving its authenticity, almost singlehandedly, for more than fifty years. That he could hold his own against entrenched opposition was a remarkable achievement. However, as it has t urned out, he had a powerful ally on his side. This is that the stone is in fact a 1'4th century Norse carving. This enabled Holand to call attention to many details which pointed in the direction of authenticity. It is always a help to be on the right side of an argument. So much for the discovery and subsequent history of the runestone. In an entirely different category were the objections of runologists and linguists to features in the inscription which they could not explain, and which they consequently did not accept. They could, and did, point to literally dozens of strange details. Their claims that these features were not proper in a 14th century inscription appeared, for the most part, to be justified. No one could explain their presence, except in part, in spite of vigorous efforts to do so. What no one could know, until it was discovered and solved, was that these anomalies were deliberately introduced by the runemaster in order to accomodate an extensive cryptogram. In Norse Medieval Cryptography In Runic Carvings the writer came to the defense, quite stl'Ongly, of the positions of the runologists and linguists in this matter. He said, among other things, that, in the absence of knowledge of the source of these numerous strange features, it was no wonder that they turned their backs on the inscription. He only deplores that they appear to have continued to listen so intently to the siren song of hoax from this side of the Atlantic. This unquestionably, in the writer's opinion, erased, or at least reduced, their incentive to try to find the true answer.

Rather extensive comments on the problems that the runologists and the linguists faced, are to be found in Chapter 17 of Norse Medieval Cryptography. It is entitled Five Scholars And The Kensington Inscription. Since there seems to be no reason to make substantial changes in that assessment, the contents will not be reproduced here. One paragraph from

100

page 187 of the chapter will, however, be quoted because it expresses a general conclusion: "The above paragraphs show clearly that Nielsen made a perfect score in his evaluation of the anomalies in the runes of the Kensington inscription. Based on information that was available to him at that time, his objections to the forms of the runic symbols were, in ever y case, well taken. On t he other hand, the solution of the cryptogram demonstrates equally clearly that Harrek (the runemaster) used the r unes of the 16 letter medieval (Danish ) alphabet, and no other. It was his numerous conversions (of certain r unic symbols) to unknown forms, or at least rarely used forms, that cr eated the confusion." The words in parentheses were added in order to clarify the subject matter of the quotation. The reference is to the distinguished Danish runologist, Karl Martin Nielsen. But it is not the intention to single him out since similar views were held by other eminent contributors to the Kensington debate. Among them are Erik Moltke, archaeologist with the National Museum in Copenhagen, who is also the author of a work on Danish runes, and Sven B. F. J ansson, professor of r unology at the University of Stockholm. Nielsen took exception to a total of about fifty symbols out of more than two hundred in the Kensington carving. The fifty, he believed, either had not been in use in the 14th century, or their use had been very rare. The changed runes were four of the sixteen in the Danish alphabet, namely the symbols for a, u, k, and o. The discussion hinged on whether it was reasonable to assume that t hese str ange symbols could appear in a 14th century inscription. To this, Nielsen and other runologists answered in the negative with somewhat varying degrees of conviction as to individual symbols. With t he discovery of the dated cryptogram, this question is no longer r elevant. The runemaster of Kensington either knew of such unusual symbols, and copied them, or he simply invented them on the spot. Whether he did one or the other does not matt er so far as the cryptogram is concerned. However, since strange symbols wer e introduced, there must have been a good reason. If so, the reason is important. The following paragraphs will explore the reasons that these symbols were introduced. 101

FIGURE 13

1.

?1©ltR : ~}:ff:~~RR~t1:g9 :

!:9bP X ~tl~+V1XRp:PR~= ~ltlX 1p=4~=o/+~l=o/l:

2.

3.

4.

i-XP+: IX~ -- tR-o/ t P f ~-~ f-Xl< :+~: =

=

=

pX~~:R I~ f:~4 RR= rR~~pt1~:~1tt: 6. o/ j: o/l R: ~}: J ~ ~t:f t:p X'~txgt IR:

s.

r

1.f l:J~ ~: *f~: rxt= f: ~~i:R6J?t: s._l f: g I~ P:~ ~= Pt ? AV M: 9. rRx- 1I~ +:X- t ~-l1 : =

r: }

10.fXR: f=~XJ~:ff:tXo/tt=Xi:~ f: 11.x /R:~4 Rf:~~ I PX~f =RI~-}:

g7r 12.-rRW= Hf~:©°tX*R: rf pf= 11

THE ALTERED RUNES IN KENSI NGTON

The situation begins to become more clear when it is noticed that, among the disputed runic forms, 22 involve replacements for the Danish rune for a, 14 for k, and 10 for u. It will be recalled from Chapter 2 that these are the same numbers that pinpoint the Kensington date, April 24, 1362 in the calendar. For April 24, DDL = 2, and ND = 10. For 1362 A.D., YDL = 2 and YGN = 14. Since no calendrical indicator has a value that is as large as 22, this number is assumed to represent 2 and 2. This assumption is reenforced by the fact that the Dominical Letter for both the year and the day is 2. The "fusion" of two numbers into a larger number for special purposes in dated cryptography has been demonstrated on numerous occasions in these pages. In Figure 13 the str ange symbols that were substituted for the Danish a are underlined with a single line, those that were substituted for k are double underlined, and those that were substituted for u are triple underlined. Figure 14 shows what considerable planning went into this construction. In the first place, and very importantly, only those Danish runes that represented more than one sound were chosen for conversion . The Danish rune for ci had the regular sound, and also the sound of the same rune with umlaut; the rune for u represented the sounds u and w; and the rune for k expressed the sounds k and g. By the 14th century the symbol for o was used, not only to r epresent the normal sound, but the same sound with umlaut. That each rune represented two sounds permitted the runemaster to substitute sets of two different symbols for each of the thr ee Danish runes. These ar e shown in the second column of Figure 14. The number of each new symbol is recorded in the third column, and the total number of conversions for each Danish rune will be found in column four. It is interesting to note that other Danish runes, whose total number in the inscription is also a calendrical indicator, were not used. For example, the inscription has exactly 8 runes for both l and h, and the Rati for the year 1362 is 8. There are also 10 runes for f. This corresponds \'rith ND = 10. There are 10 days from the first day of spring, April 14, to the day of Kensington, April 24. Why were not these converted? The reason is that they do not represent more than one sound. Therefore they could not

103

help to further obscure the calendrical significance of the conversions. The runemastar was playing the usual game of conspicuous details without revealing too much. The colleag·ues of the runemaster would have realized at once that these were strange symbols. Therefore they should have some connection with the cryptogTam. But when they began to count these symbols to see if they had calendrical significance they would arrive at numbers such as in the third column of Figure 14. Only the number of converted sounds for iv, which is 10, came out the same as the calendrical indicators for April 24, 1362. The use of runes with two sounds brought, not only benefits, but also problems. Note that, in t he inscri ption, there are 11 runes that express the sounds u and w . Of these, 10 have the sound iv and one the sound of u. Since ND = 10, one of the eleven must be taken out of circulation. This was done neatly by seeing to it that the u was the last symbol in Line 9. To this symbol is assigned a special function by making an extra cut across the lower part of its staff. This will be discussed later. It left to the ten symbols with the sound w the assignment of indicating that ND = 10 for April 24. A different probl em was encountered in converting the Danish runes for k into new symbols for the sounds k and g. Actually there ar e seven symbols that have the sound of k in the inscription, and six that have the sound g . The sum is 13, one short of the required 14 for YGN = 14. The problem was ingeniously solved by reconverting an alr eady converted rune for le into a g. The reconverted symbol is the g in what shou ld have been ok in Line 8. The misspelling of ok as og is one of the apparent

irrationalities in the inscription which the linguists, quite understandably, could not forgi ve. Why, when olc is spelled correctly twice elsewhere, should the runemaster be so careless, or stupid , as to spell it wrong in Line 8? It was indeed a good question and one that could not be answered until the cryptogram was solved. There are several other misspellings in Kensington that were deliberat ely committed for equally arbitra ry reasons. In all cases they satisfied a need of t he cryptogram. Two of th ese words wer e I ikewise spelled correctly elsewhere, and 104

FIGURE 14

THE

NORMAL

DilISH RUBE

0Hil1GED

TO THIS

J = ~.x .... 'I

,X= xx

~

~= \:.:f =

=

r

=

u,w~

A

=

X:,G~I ~"

NUMBER 01 EA.OH KIND

18 4

lf

10

u

1

=K =G

SYMBOLS (!OTAL)

22

10 •

1

7

14 ••

*

The single symbol for U is at the end of Line 9. It ls segregated tor a special purpose by an extra cut acress its shaft. See Line 9 in Figure 13 .

**

There were originally 7 Ks and 6 Gs. The runemaster needed one more conversion to make 14. He changed OK in Line 8 to OG.

thereupon spelled incorrectly when this was required. For example, the preposition fro is spelled correctly in Lines 2 and 5 (Figure 12 A), but is written from in Line 12. So also the word man is spelled pr oper ly in Line 7 but appears, in the identical usage, as ?nans in Line 10. In both cases the extra symbol was inserted in order to increase the count from one point to another in the inscription. This is, of course, the opposite operation from decreasing the count of symbols by combining runes. Both from and mans were thought by some, and not unreasonably, to be English incursions. The crypto·g ram in the Latin legends of the Vinland Map has several words misspelled by adding letters. They include 105

Vin(i)landa, Is(o)landa Iberni(c)a, and even I(e)rlanda, for Irel~nd. The Latin scholars who discussed these misspellings in the book, The Vinland Map and the Tartar Relation, which was published by Yale University in 1965, could, quite naturally, give no explanation for these and other anomalies that were caused by the presence of the cryptogram. The Vinland Map cr yptogram also makes frequent, and effective, use of abbreviations. These are found both in the Latin text as it appears in the map and in the cryptogram itself. The Latin scholars interpreted the visible abbreviations but could not explain why the words were not written out in full. As usual, this was to adjust the number of letters between two points in the inscription so as to state the date. While the discussion is still centered around arbitrary changes in the Kensington inscription, consider the following. All lines in the inscription do not star l from a common margin. There a r e in fact four lines that begin one to four runic spaces to the right of their neighbors. Lines 12, 9, 3, and 2 begin 1-2-4-4 spaces, respectively, to the right. It will be r ecalled from Chapter 2 tha.t, in the 11th and 12th centuries, all cryptographed dates came late in the year. This was because the numerical values of runes could not express larger numbers for ND. I n fact, as the inscript ions became longer, single runes tended to become lost in the inscription, and more showy methods for stating the ND had to be devised. I n later centuries means were developed which could indicate an ND of any required numerical value. The six non-runic symbols in Kingigtorssuaq is one example. Kensington is another. The last three numbers that were indicated by the offsets were 2-4-4. They combine in the usual way to form the indication ND = 244. This corresponds to the day April 24 in the calendar. This day is confirmed no less than five times in the inscription, twice by DDL = 2, and three times by ND = 10. The latter is based on the fact that April 24 follows the first day of summer, April 14, by 10 days. Line 12 is offset only one space. This was to indicate that the day, April 24, fell on the first day of the week, that is, on a Sunday. In Chapter 2, attention was called to the fact that, since YDL for the year 1362 A.D. was 2, and DDL for April 24 was also 2, then April 24 was a Sunday in that year. 106

The analysis of ND = 244 by offsets, and the multiple confirmations of April 24 as the day of the inscription, st ands on its own feet. However, suppose that t he calendrical significance of this indicatiou of ND went unnoticed? The runemaster set up an elabor ate set of signals to make sure that it would be noticed by anyone who was knowledgeable in the procedures of dated cryptograms. First, the inscri ption was deliberately carved in t wo sections of 9 lines and 3 lines. This made 12 lines, consisting of 9 lines and 3 lines, in 2 parts. Notice that the resulting number series exactly matches the numbers of the lines that were offset, 12-9-3-2. The probability that this could happen by accident is not large. But even if it was an accident, this does not affect the validity of ND = 244 by line offsets. Perhaps the runemaster felt that this subtle hint might go unnoticed even by his cryptogram-\'Vise colleagues. At any rate he set u p five extra signals t hat pointed to t he critically important division of the t ext at Line 9. It was important that anyone who tried to solve the cryptogram should become aware of the importance of this division at Line 9. This was the r eason that the extra cut was placed across the staff of the last symbol in the line. E xtra cuts are always a signal of some sort in dated cryptography. In the inscription there are three large ovals that ar e surmounted by double dots. These have always been interpreted as a symbol for o with umlaut. In fact the context requires this meaning. Again these three special symbols for o represent one of two sounds that t he Danish r une for o had in t he 14th century. Those that had the regular sound were not changed in this case. Of these t here are sixteen. What purpose do the ovals serve? In the first place they attract attention. They certainly attracted the (unfavorable) attention of r unologists. It is probable that they appeared to be equally conspicuous to the colleagues of the runemaster for whom t he cryptogr am was constructed. Inside each oval is carved a Danish rune for i. It has t he numerical value 9. This is a t riple reminder t hat the division of t he text into 9 lines and 3 lines is important as a clue, and it calls att ention to the cut across the last symbol in Line 9. In order to emphasize the importance of the cut at the end

107

of Line 9, a cut was made across the staffs of the three runes for i within the ovals. It is true that t hese cuts slant downward to the right. By way of contrast, the extra cut across the last symbol in Line 9 is perpendicular to the staff of the symbol. The slanted cuts across the runes for i appear to have been caused by the fact that the ovals ar e r ather narrow. A cut directly across the staff might have appeared as if the oval was divided into two halves. See the photograph in Figure 11. There are two more such sign als that call attention to the break in the text at Line 9. They are a part of a very neat cryptogr aphic package. The symbols in Line 12 of the inscription are reproduced in Figure 15. In the exact center of the line is one of the three ovals. Beginning with the oval as the fi rst symbol, the count in each direction is exactly 9. FIGURE 15

9

9 THE TWELFTH LINE

Is the double occurrence of the number 9 for the fourt h and fifth times an accident'? Not at all. It took considerable manipulation to adj ust the counts in t his way. The count of 9 to the left was attained by misspelling the word fro as from as was mentioned above. This misspelling tended to make the linguists skeptical, particularly because the same word was spelled correctly elsewhere. Some also thought that froni was modern English. The only concern of the r unemaster was that his calleagues could read it and understand it. This misspelling certainly presented no problem to them. Some linguists were equally displeased wit h the right side of the line. H ere two words are misspelled by adding to them

108

FIGURE 16

THE INSCRIPTION WITHOUT ALTERED RUNES, MISSPELLINGS OR EXTRA CURS.

the rune for h. T his changed t he spelling of o and ar, which signified island and year in the 14th century, to oh and ahr. However, the runemaster had accomplished his purpose. Line 12 contains three signals that point to the significance of the break in the text at Line 9. In view of the numerous visible changes that the runemaster made in his text in order to fit the cryptogram into the inscription, it is interesting to see what t he original text must have looked like. This is shown in Figure 16. A total of fifty conversions of Danish runes into widely different symbols have been removed. So have misspellings such as from, og, mans, rise (which should have been rese in Lines 5 and 11), and oh and a.Jir in Line 12. Removed also is the combined rune, l and e, in the word slclear in Line 4. Finally, the non-runic vertical cut ahead of t he first word in Line 2, as well as the cut across the last symbol in Line 9 ar e gone. This raises to a total of sixty the a nomalies that have been removed from the Kensington inscription in Figure 16. They were introduced by the runemast er solely for the purpose of acco.m modating the crytogram. The only thing that still distinguishes t he representation of the Kensington inscript ion in Figure 16, from one that would be expected in a 14th century runic inscription, is the numbers. They are written ·w ith pentathic symbols. To this there are only two exceptions. Two numbers are written out in longhand. The r eason will be discussed lat er. The pentathic method for expressing numbers, like the r unic and Roman, is based on the sum of the component parts of its symbols. These methods are basically differ ent from the decimal system. Signs that represent the values 1, 5, and 10 are added as branches that may project to both sides of a vertical staff. The numerical value of the ent ire symbol is t he sum of the values of these separate parts. Columns 3, 4, and 5 of Figure 9 illustrate pentathic systems that are 'identical in concept,ion cind operat'ion to that w hich is found in K ensington. The forms of specific symbols in Columns 3, and 4 are also very similar to those in Kensington. In fact, the only differ ence is that in the illustrations from F asti Danici in Figure 9, the number 10 is represented by a bar which inter sects the staff. This is a different concept from the loop that is used in the same column to represent the 110

number 5. In Kensington, the semicircle on one side of the staff, that is used to represent the number 5, is simply completed as a full circle in order to indicate the number 10. This is clearly a more simple and logical application of the same idea. It is unrealistic to take the position, as some have done, that the Kensington symbols are not proper for a 14th century inscription. The pentathic and the runic systems for representing numbers are basically identical. Both indicate numerical values by the addition of the values of the component parts of its symbols. For this reason the pentathic system can only represent numbers that are moderately larger than the runic. As a matter o.f fact the only reason that there is any difference at all is that the penthatic symbols are somewhat more fl exible. It would, nevertheless, have been impossible to use the penthatic system to state a number as large as ND = 244. This is the number that indicates the day, April 24, in the Kensington cryptogram. However, a cursory inspection of the numbers in the Kensington inscription reveals that they are actually decimal number s. The penthatic symbols are used only as a substitute for the Arabic digits from 1 to 9. For example, let us take the last word in the inscription. This is the number 1362. It is represented by four consecutive penthatic digits 1, 3, 6, and 2. Obviously, the first digit from the left has the value 1000 only because it occupies the fourth place to the left of the decimal point in a decimal number. To the nine digits had to be added a symbol for the number 10. The reason is that the pentathic system, no more than the runic, had any means for expressing zero. In this situation it was not feasible, when t he number 10 was to be expressed, to only indicate the number 1, and then expect the reader to know that he should add the zero mentally. Some runologists and linguists have been skeptical of the presence of the decimal system in the Kensington inscription. The reason was t hat the records that have been available to them show almost no use of decimal notation even as late as the 14th century. Dated cryptograms, however, prove that at least some Scandinavians knew and used the decimal system three and a half centuries before the Kensington stone was carved. They were church-connected and almost certainly members of the clergy. 111

In Chapter 1 attention was called to the fact that the decimal system was taught in the lar ge monastery schools of France and Germany a generation before 1000 A.D. In these schools many of the Norse clergy received their training. In addition, many priests and monks came to Scandinavia as missionaries from the countries to the south. It will scarcely be denied t.hat many of the features that were discussed above are persuasive evidence of the presence of a dated cryptogram. However, such features, with the exception of the indication, ND = 244, are strictly supplementary. They only supply additional confirmations to a day and a year which the runemcister had already stated and confirmed several times over. The central core of the cryptographic procedures that date the Kensington inscription will be analyzed in what follows. There are a total of ten numbers in the r unic text of Kensington. Of these ten, eight are carefully spotlighted by writing them with special 1'4th century pentathic symbols. The numbers, in the order that they appear in the inscription, are 8, 2, 2, 2, 10, 10, 14, 1362. In Figure 17 these numbers are underlined twice with solid lines. lnnocent as these numbers may appear at first glance, this is a crutically important fact: All of the eight numbers, without exception, are those, and those only, that pinpoint the day, ApriZ 24, and the year 1862 A.D. in the perpetual calendar. The references to the day ar e DDL = 2 and ND = 10, and for the year they are Rati = 8, YGN = 14, and YDL = 2. This series of numbers represents eight consecutive, but independent, coincidences with the calendrical indicators that state the day and the year of Kensington, April 24, 1362. In order to explore the probability that precisely these numbers, and no others, could somehow have appeared by accident, consider the following facts. Rati = 8 is only one of 19 lines in the Easter Table of the calendar. Likewise YGN = 14 is only one of the 19 Golden Numbers, and YDL is one of the 7 Dominica! Letters. These numbers were all chosen correctly for the year 1362 A.D. from the calendar and displayed correctly in the Kensington inscription as pentathic numbers. The situation is similar with the numbers in the inscription that confirm the day, April 24. DDL = 2 is again one of the 7 Dominica! Letters. With ND = 10 it is somewhat more 112

FIGURE 17

LINE

,

WORD S

?:Y®l- tR: ~~-==: ff: ~~R R ~f1:g~ : -

•

.=.

2.

l=}b pX ~t I~+ rx Rp:/f R~: ~111X 1p=~f=\f/t~t = tf11:

3.

4. 2.

4.

4.

tX pf :JX~ tR=o/ t p=F~ ~ fXR= i}~

5.

5.

pX~~:RJ ~ f : 1~ RR= rR~ : pt11 : ~tt1:

6.

6.

=

o/ I: o/X R:~}: r ~ ~+=LtP >