Talk:Heavener Runestone

Unreferenced tag

Great article, very informative. But it desperately needs citations. (It does attribute theories to individuals here and there, which is good, but checkable cites are needed.) Phiwum 04:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll try to get some references added as time allows. The belief that these are authentic Viking runes is mainly due to the influence of one woman, Gloria Farley, who spent nearly half a century researching and promoting the idea. Her theory has not been accepted by mainstream archaeologists. Aardvark92 17:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs citations hello helloooooooooooo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.178.165.137 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've converted a couple of the references that were in the text to something approaching proper ref. style, but really somebody with access to a library in or near Heavener needs to have a go, so I've left in the Unreferenced tag for now. David Trochos (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Academic treatments?

The theories presented in the article don't appear to come from mainstream academic archaeologists. Are there journal publications that discuss the runestone? Or has it been widely ignored in academia? Phiwum 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See Aardvark92's comment above. There is no Norse (let alone Old Norse, pre Leif Eiriksson) cultural context for the Oklahoma runestones, and the earliest first-hand (as opposed to hearsay) accounts of this stone are memories of its existence around 1900, shortly after the railroad was driven through Heavener. Money is available for study of the Oklahoma stones, but not academic credit. David Trochos 08:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

How should Wikipedia treat these 'runestone' and 'Norse artifact' type articles? If academics don't consider them 'authentic' runestones, should these articles lead off with things like "The Heavener Runestone is a runestone..."?--Breandán MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

An excellent point. I've reworded this to call it an inscribed stone (and removed the 'ancient' bit. I hope that's better. This should be done to any similar articles. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I'm not so sure. The symbols on the Heavener stone are all identifiable as variants of runes (rather than, say, Ogham or Cuneiform characters), so technically it IS a runestone- only thing is, it's probably a late 19th-century runestone rather than a pre-Columbian runestone. David Trochos (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"Viking" vs Norse

I notice that in this and other articles there is a regular confusion of "Viking" and "Norse"; one is an occupation and refers to an era, the other is an ethnicity/culture; and if pre-Viking North Germanic peoples did make it to North America, even "Norse" is a bit of a misnomer as it also refers to an era to some degree; say, just speculatively, that the Heavener Runestone dates to the 5th Century (because of its allegedly Elder Futhark script), then even "Norse" is a bit of a stretch; North Germanic peoples were already cultural distinct from the moer southerly ones at that time, but not by much; I don't know what a suitable term is, partly because of the popular imagery/mythology associated with the Vikings, and also with the fasionability of "Norse". "Norse" is safest I suppose, although "Scandinavian" might work better; but say if the users of these runes, if they're real, were from Lower Saxony or Frisia or the Rhine - neither "Viking" nor "Norse" nor "Scandinavian" is suitable.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The first Finders

The first finders of the runestone were Hac Barnes and Alford McGowen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.8.35.198 (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If a printed source (with references to primary near-contemporary information) can be found for this, it would be very useful for the article, but as pointed out by other editors, an anecdotal claim is not acceptable. David Trochos (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative hypothesis

I don't disagree that this alternative hypothesis seems a bit... forced. however: "Unfortunately, this explanation would require the Norse explorer to have known two extinct alphabets." I know literacy at the time wasn't what it is now, but is one explorer knowing two alphabets really so out of the question that it could really be used as an argument against this hypothesis? We don't know how many languages an unknown explorer knew any more than we know the explorer's birth date, number of sibling, favorite breakfast food... to say "this theory doesn't hold, because there's no way this explorer knew two alphabets" seems to me as much a guess as "this person totally knew two alphabets, and got them confused".

well, not "as much" - again, I don't dispute that one is more likely than the other... but it still seems to me like both are guesses with plenty of room for error... to use one as proof against the other seems... hasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.183.44 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a fool - upon rereading, it's two extinct alphabets, not two distinct alphabets >_> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.183.44 (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Alf Monges speculations

There is no reliable source about this, his books are published on "Norseman press" who seems to have published nothing except books of Alf Monges speculations about the stone carvings. The books are hence self-published, and not reliable sources about this stone. I would also say that Monges theories are WP:FRINGE as not even most of those supporting the authenticity of north American runestones seem to support Monges theories.

I therefore think that Monges speculations should be removed, unless somebody can show that it's not fringe and that there are reliable sources about this. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Another tricky one! As noted in the first section of this talk page, it's well-nigh impossible to find sources relating to this (and most other alleged pre-Columbian European artifacts in the United States) which aren't fringe. Mongé's work may have been effectively self-published, but at least he had genuine professional ability as a code/cipher specialist... David Trochos (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but no expertise at all on runes or history, and his "codes" are of the bible code variety, ie you can get anything to mean anything you want. Nobody takes it seriously except OG Landsverk. :) (That is, nobody as far as I can find). --OpenFuture (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

But part of my point was that "fringe" theories are central to the study of alleged pre-Columbian European artifacts in the United States; remove them and you're left with a whole bunch of articles that all read "Many claims have been made regarding the origins and significance of this carving, but it's almost certainly just a practical joke". :-( David Trochos (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, clearly we must have a narrower definition of "fringe" than just meaning "non-mainstream". But even with such a narrow definition, Monges theories are WP:Fringe IMO. Not even the people who believe in it's authenticity take him very seriously. It's the fringe's fringe. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking again at the article and its history, I find we have an interesting position. Other "fringe fringe" theories already have been removed, so by that logic, Mongé should indeed go, leaving just Farley as the original proponent, and Nielsen- but maybe Nielsen should go too, as his speculation is no more likely to be correct than Mongé's- which brings us perilously close to the position I described in my last response. An alternative might be a very simplified list of all documented theories, with their authors' names (with source refs) so that people could check them out for themselves. David Trochos (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Likely to be correct" is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not allowed to make those judgement. It is about how notable the theory is, that is how many people take it seriously, basically. I think Nielsen is taken seriously by the various believers in the authenticity of these stones. As such he is "fringe" in the sense "not accepted by mainstream" but his theories would still be notable. Monges theories are neither. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this an article?

Everything in the article seems to go to the point that, "There's this thing, but it's not really a thing, so disregard it." If the story isn't "Scandinavian explorers carved their name on a rock in Oklahoma centuries ago," then what is it? And if there's no story, why have this page?96.231.227.107 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the runestone is relatively well-known and people may be interested in learning about it. Phiwum (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Discovery?

Surely, we should include some information about when and how the stone was discovered.

For that matter, is there only one "Heavener runestone"? The Poteau Runestone article seems to suggest there are a few stones going by that name. Phiwum (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Gnomedal

An indication of a hoax is that the word "gnome" is a French loanword that never has been used in Scandinavian, with "gnomus" only attested in Latin from the 1500's. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)