Latest update re. KRS
Inger E Johansson
reading this article from one of Sweden's most respectable paper 'Dagens
Nyheter'
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=597&a=147406&previousRenderType=2
Inger E
Eric Stevens
Is there an english translation of the full article?
Eric Stevens
Nik Warrensson
<inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
Ah go on Inger. Tell us what it means please? My Swedish isn't good
enough.
Thanks
Nik
Stein R.
Here is a summary of the main points in the article :
"Fake runestone *might* be real"
This fall the Kensington runestone will be exhibited at
the Historical museum in Stockholm, and the controversy
continues. The fight is still, as it was a 100 years ago,
between established archaelogists, historians and linguists
on one side (who believe it is a fake) and enthusiastic,
energic amateur researchers on the other side.
Then they refer to theories by two Americans, Scott Wolter
and Richard Nielsen" and continue: *If* their claims can
pass a closer review, it will be a sensation.
Basically, the article says that there are some people
(which are described as enthusiastic amateur researchers)
who belive the stone is a real runestone.
But the article also finish the review of both Nielsens
claims and Wolter's claims by presumably well known
Swedish scientists comment on the claims.
Henrik Williams, professor of Nordic languages at the
University of Uppsala, says that although Nielsen has
force linguists to admit that the language is not proof
that is is fake, neither it is proof that it is real,
and Williams still thinks that this "runestone" is too
different from other runestones to be credible.
Archaelogisk Birgitta Wallace, who worked on the ex-
cavations at L'anse aux Meadowes and have studied the
Kensignton runestone for years, says in comment to
Wolter's claims that she still has seen nothing to make
her change her opinion that the runestone is an 1800s
fake. "Which doesn't make it uninteresting - it is an
interesting example of the creativity of scandinavian
settlers, rather than a milestone in American archaeo-
logy".
As usual, Inger didn't have much basis for her comment
"Those who think the KRS is a fake might be better off reading
this".
The article did not say anything much new in any direction:
Enthustiastic amateurs still think it is real. The jury is
still out on some of the claims by Scott Wolter, but established
Swedish experts in the field are still sceptical and inclined
to think it is a fake.
Grin,
Stein, who can read Swedish as good as Inger, but in addition
is able to not let over-enthusiasm color my perception of what
I have read.
Soren Larsen
"Stein R." <st...@nospam.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3EDEDB...@nospam.com...
> Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> Henrik Williams, professor of Nordic languages at the
> University of Uppsala, says that although Nielsen has
> force linguists to admit that the language is not proof
> that is is fake, neither it is proof that it is real,
> and Williams still thinks that this "runestone" is too
> different from other runestones to be credible.
" Jag tycker absolut inte att han löst alla språkliga och
runologiska problem med stenen"
"I do absolutely not think that he (Richard Nielsen)
has solved all the linguistic and runological problems
with the stone"
Henrik Williams
> As usual, Inger didn't have much basis for her comment
> "Those who think the KRS is a fake might be better off reading
> this".
You can say that again
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Inger E. Johansson
news:4iitdv0c4r5f196or...@4ax.com
Eric,
I will try to forward one translation made by a museum. It will have to
be later today. Because I am at work for the moment.
Inger E
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Inger E. Johansson
news:3EDEDB...@nospam.com
> Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 04:31:00 GMT, "Inger E Johansson"
> > <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Those who believe that KRS is a fake and can read Swedish might be better of
> > >reading this article from one of Sweden's most respectable paper 'Dagens
> > >Nyheter'
> > >
> > >http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=597&a=147406&previousRenderType=2
> > >
> >
> > Is there an english translation of the full article?
> >
> > Eric Stevens
>
> Here is a summary of the main points in the article :
say Stein
but he has managed to miss a lot and since there are an official English
translation available, might be posted on net by now or will so be in
the next days.
I think it's best for you to wait - Stein have missed most of the
context even if he can read Swedish.
As always Stein manage to supress instead of translate in a normal way.
the article say 'false stone might be autentic/genuin'
the essential part new part is that two more mineral's glaciation have
been studied.
and
that Prof. Williams gives credit to Dick Nielsen's work even if he
doesn't think that Nielsen have solved every problem, on the other hand
there are syntax and words which he(William) find hard believing to be
from 19th c,
Williams most essential new part is:
If geological studies show the stone to be more than 100 years between
carving and finding,
[and that's more than indicated in the article, new independent studies
are underway to confirm both the first study by SW and the new which
haven't been published.]
then one have to treat KRS as genuine/authentic.
Inger E. Johansson
news:bbmmsr$b51rj$1...@ID-131301.news.dfncis.de
>
> "Stein R." <st...@nospam.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:3EDEDB...@nospam.com...
> > Eric Stevens wrote:
> > >
> > Henrik Williams, professor of Nordic languages at the
> > University of Uppsala, says that although Nielsen has
> > force linguists to admit that the language is not proof
> > that is is fake, neither it is proof that it is real,
> > and Williams still thinks that this "runestone" is too
> > different from other runestones to be credible.
>
>
> " Jag tycker absolut inte att han löst alla språkliga och
> runologiska problem med stenen"
>
> "I do absolutely not think that he (Richard Nielsen)
> has solved all the linguistic and runological problems
> with the stone"
>
> Henrik Williams
You missed the most essential part and stoped with one of the few
restricted sentences of William's.
As usual you never change.
>
>
>
> > As usual, Inger didn't have much basis for her comment
> > "Those who think the KRS is a fake might be better off reading
> > this".
You have missed most of the context in the text.
But then again you haven't heard about what's to happen from an
archaeologist working close to the Runverket, have you?
>
> You can say that again
>
> Cheers
> Soren Larsen
Soren,
you better prepare to eat your hat in a delious way instead of attacking
me.
There are much more to come,
you haven't even tried to notice and discuss the fact that there now are
4 minerals confirming glaciation process to be more than 200 years
between the inner part of the carved runes and the runecarving which
have a more recent ageing....
You have missed a lot of other details as well,
for example that it's confirmed that there tree roots have been
surrounding the stone exactly where Olsen said they were.
You have missed to tell the world that Williams said that if geological
studies confirm the age to be more than 100 years one have to treat the
stone as genuine.
More to come.
Inger E
PS.btw - I have full context for where the Vinland village mentioned on
the stone were located,
and heard just the other day that an archaeologic excavations will be
done this summer of more 'European' graves than you naysayer would like
to know existed OBSERVED by the first settlers and explorers in the
area.
IEJ
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 04:31:00 GMT, "Inger E Johansson"
>> <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Those who believe that KRS is a fake and can read Swedish might be better of
>> >reading this article from one of Sweden's most respectable paper 'Dagens
>> >Nyheter'
>> >
>> >http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=597&a=147406&previousRenderType=2
>> >
>>
>> Is there an english translation of the full article?
>>
>> Eric Stevens
>
> Here is a summary of the main points in the article :
>
> "Fake runestone *might* be real"
The emphasis is yours I presume.
I know english makes more efficient use of words than many other
languages but your *translation* is so much shorter than the original
(258 words versus 1337 in the original) that I have to ask if it is
fact a paraphrase rather than a translation?
The question is what have you left out and what have you put in?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>"Stein R." <st...@nospam.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:3EDEDB...@nospam.com...
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>> >
>> Henrik Williams, professor of Nordic languages at the
>> University of Uppsala, says that although Nielsen has
>> force linguists to admit that the language is not proof
>> that is is fake, neither it is proof that it is real,
>> and Williams still thinks that this "runestone" is too
>> different from other runestones to be credible.
>
>
>" Jag tycker absolut inte att han löst alla språkliga och
>runologiska problem med stenen"
>
>"I do absolutely not think that he (Richard Nielsen)
>has solved all the linguistic and runological problems
>with the stone"
In the days whe I learned Latin I would get 0 out of 10 for a
translation like that. I suspect the rest is no better.
---- snip ----
Eric Stevens
Soren Larsen
"Inger E. Johansson" <inger_e....@telia.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:77195e1eb3be52c70d3...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
> news:bbmmsr$b51rj$1...@ID-131301.news.dfncis.de
>
> >
> > "Stein R." <st...@nospam.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:3EDEDB...@nospam.com...
> > > Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > >
> > > Henrik Williams, professor of Nordic languages at the
> > > University of Uppsala, says that although Nielsen has
> > > force linguists to admit that the language is not proof
> > > that is is fake, neither it is proof that it is real,
> > > and Williams still thinks that this "runestone" is too
> > > different from other runestones to be credible.
> >
> >
> > " Jag tycker absolut inte att han löst alla språkliga och
> > runologiska problem med stenen"
> >
> > "I do absolutely not think that he (Richard Nielsen)
> > has solved all the linguistic and runological problems
> > with the stone"
> >
> > Henrik Williams
>
> You missed the most essential part and stoped with one of the few
> restricted sentences of William's.
>
Oh! You mean sentences like this:
" Jag har svårt att tro att människor från Norden helt plötsligt skulle
skapa något som så gravt avviker från alla andra språkmonument vi
har från den tiden."
"I find it hard to believe that northerners suddenly would
create something that deviates so seriously from other linguistic
monuments of that time (14th c)"
Henrik Williams
> >
> > > As usual, Inger didn't have much basis for her comment
> > > "Those who think the KRS is a fake might be better off reading
> > > this".
>
> You have missed most of the context in the text.
[giggling]
You are accusing me of missing the context?
[snickering]
>
> But then again you haven't heard about what's to happen from an
> archaeologist working close to the Runverket, have you?
> >
Why would I care?
>
> There are much more to come,
> you haven't even tried to notice and discuss the fact that there now
are
> 4 minerals confirming glaciation process to be more than 200 years
> between the inner part of the carved runes and the runecarving which
> have a more recent ageing....
Glaciation process ???
more recent ageing???
What the h*ll are you talking about?
>
> You have missed a lot of other details as well,
> for example that it's confirmed that there tree roots have been
> surrounding the stone exactly where Olsen said they were.
>
> You have missed to tell the world that Williams said that if
geological
> studies confirm the age to be more than 100 years one have to treat
the
> stone as genuine.
>
The operative word here is 'if'.
From the article:
"Wolters rapport är ännu inte helt klar. Än mindre har den analyserats
och bedömts av geologer som är specialister på runstenar."
"Wolters (Geologist who is pro KRS) report lacks to be finished.
It even more lacks to be analyzed and judged by geologists who
are specialists on runestones"
Soren Larsen
Soren Larsen
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i en meddelelse
news:hb4udv40iid4ot7uh...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:05:02 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
snip
> >
> >" Jag tycker absolut inte att han löst alla språkliga och
> >runologiska problem med stenen"
> >
> >"I do absolutely not think that he (Richard Nielsen)
> >has solved all the linguistic and runological problems
> >with the stone"
>
> In the days whe I learned Latin I would get 0 out of 10 for a
> translation like that. I suspect the rest is no better.
>
Did your teacher know Latin?
Do you know Swedish?
I have no doubt that a more polished translation can
be done.
But I have likewise no doubt that my translation is
faithful to the original. Do note that this discussion
is crossposted to soc.culture.nordic.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Soren Larsen
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:54:54 +0200, "Stein R." <st...@nospam.com>
Stein:
> > Here is a summary of the main points in the article :
>
Eric:
> I know english makes more efficient use of words than many other
> languages but your *translation* is so much shorter than the original
> (258 words versus 1337 in the original) that I have to ask if it is
> fact a paraphrase rather than a translation?
>
Gee Eric. I think it is a summary.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Michael Zalar
> " Jag tycker absolut inte att han löst alla språkliga och
> runologiska problem med stenen"
>
> "I do absolutely not think that he (Richard Nielsen)
> has solved all the linguistic and runological problems
> with the stone"
>
> Henrik Williams
I have discussed the KRS with Dr. Williams, and he stated in
correspondence with me that if the geochemical analysis shows the
stone could not be a forgery, then he would admit the runestone was
authentic.
One of the main reasons that the KRS will be displayed in Sweden is so
that the geologists there can attempt to validate Scott Wolter's work.
If it can be shown with a high degree of probability that the stone
laid in the ground for at least a hundred years, and that the
linguistic objections can be overcome, then I think there is no doubt
that the stone will become regarded as authentic.
Frankly I think the countdown to authenticity has begun.
Michael
Lloyd
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
> The question is what have you left out and what have you put in?
>
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
The real question *should* be: Is there *anything at all*
new in the article, or could it have been created by simply
summarizing some of the thousands of K*R*S postings in this
newsgroup over the years?
In other words, if it's little more than a publicity blurb,
(and it's certainly doesn't seem to be a research report)
perhaps we can get by without another resurrection of
this tired, tired topic. (Didn't we just *do* this?)
Lloyd
*****
erilar
<soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote:
>
> I have no doubt that a more polished translation can
> be done.
>
> But I have likewise no doubt that my translation is
> faithful to the original. Do note that this discussion
> is crossposted to soc.culture.nordic.
Do they find her as silly as most of us do?
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Inger E Johansson
"Michael Zalar" <m_z...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:a458909b.03060...@posting.google.com...
Michael,
that the stone isn't from 1800's HAVE been established even if it's not
official.
Question remains re. a 1520's possible forgery.
that's why I sent you all in the group a question re. graveyards the other
day.
Two large graveyards with straight lines from grave to grave in an European
way were found by the first explorers and settlers in the area I refered to
as the place where the Greenlanders moved to via Dania Nova 1490.
The group Champlain met 1608 were members of the same group I refered to.
My latest information re. the graves is that they are about to be excavated
this summer.
On the way from Kensington to that area several artifacts have been found. I
have photos of some in my computer. Including ore and photos of an ore-pit
dated to Pre-Columbian days....
The context for KRS exists. Problem is that it can be context for an
authentic KRS from 1362 as well as for a forgery in 1520's.
Inger E
Inger E Johansson
since the complete text in Swedish using Times New Roman size 11 will give
you 4 full A4-pages..... I guess you understand that Stein R has chosen more
than usual in his so called summery...
Inger E
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:414udvgpqhrs1u3kb...@4ax.com...
Inger E Johansson
the article is written by one of the best journalists in this subject. Send
me a mail and I will send you an official translation which unfortunatly
have some minor but essential errors in it. I will send you all a complete
translation later tonight.
Inger E
"Lloyd" <bog...@noemail.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:bogart-0506...@ppp085.lax.centurytel.net...
Brian M. Scott
news:hb4udv40iid4ot7uh...@4ax.com in
soc.history.medieval:
Were you unable to understand it? Can you do any better in
any language not your own? (In any case I doubt very much
that you'd have got 0 out of 10 for a comparable translation
*into* Latin, which is the relevant direction in your case.)
It's an accurate translation with one stylistic rough spot
where the words 'do' and 'absolutely' have been
unidiomatically reversed.
While you're at it, why don't you complain about Inger's much
grosser errors, hm?
Brian M. Scott
soc.history.medieval:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:54:54 +0200, "Stein R."
> <st...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 04:31:00 GMT, "Inger E Johansson"
>>> <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
>>> >Those who believe that KRS is a fake and can read
>>> >Swedish might be better of reading this article from one
>>> >of Sweden's most respectable paper 'Dagens Nyheter'
>>> >http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=597&a=147406&pre
>>> >viousRenderType=2
>>> Is there an english translation of the full article?
>> Here is a summary of the main points in the article :
>> "Fake runestone *might* be real"
> The emphasis is yours I presume.
Yes. He is emphasizing the inaccuracy of Inger's implication.
[...]
> I know english makes more efficient use of words than many
> other languages but your *translation* is so much shorter
> than the original (258 words versus 1337 in the original)
> that I have to ask if it is fact a paraphrase rather than a
> translation?
What part of 'summary' do you not understand?
> The question is what have you left out and what have you
> put in?
The summary is accurate.
Inger E Johansson
it's you who doesn't understand Swedish as well as you have been pretending
for the last years. Today I have spoken with two Swedish scholars one
specialist in both History and Archaeology and one archaeologist. Neither
have understood the article the way you do - contrary would be more exact.
Not to mention the fact that one who wasn't especially open for the
autenthic possiblity before now have changed his mind.
I think you too, as well as Soren, better prepare a good cooking for your
hat. You will need it.
Inger E
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns939183AD73F88s...@129.250.170.91...
George Black
"Michael Zalar" <m_z...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a458909b.03060...@posting.google.com...
: "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
:
a piece of greywacke has spent 100 years in the ground...???
Hold the presses while you learn a little of geology.. I would expect
that the length of time that greywacke has 'lain' in the ground might
be in the order of millions of years..
The KRS is not authentic.
Jonathan Stone
Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>On 05 Jun 2003 Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
>news:414udvgpqhrs1u3kb...@4ax.com in
>soc.history.medieval:
>> I know english makes more efficient use of words than many
>> other languages but your *translation* is so much shorter
>> than the original (258 words versus 1337 in the original)
>> that I have to ask if it is fact a paraphrase rather than a
>> translation?
>
>What part of 'summary' do you not understand?
Like Humpty-Dumpty: as much or as little of it as suits his purpose.
Eric is the kind of crackpot who, if Abian was still around, would
examine Abian's theories and decide they warranted a deep literature
searh on how just how many decimal places the power 2 in f =
g.m_1.m_2/r^2 has been experimentally measured.
(And if Alexander Abian was Nordic, Inger would be praising
Scandinavian selenodynamic prowess.)
Brian M. Scott
<inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in
news:CkLDa.10308$mU6....@newsb.telia.net in
soc.history.medieval:
> Brian,
> it's you who doesn't understand Swedish as well as you have
> been pretending for the last years. Today I have spoken
> with two Swedish scholars one specialist in both History
> and Archaeology and one archaeologist. Neither have
> understood the article the way you do - contrary would be
> more exact.
Lying again, I expect.
[...]
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:hb4udv40iid4ot7uh...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 08:05:02 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
>
>snip
>
>
>> >
>> >" Jag tycker absolut inte att han löst alla språkliga och
>> >runologiska problem med stenen"
>> >
>> >"I do absolutely not think that he (Richard Nielsen)
>> >has solved all the linguistic and runological problems
>> >with the stone"
>>
>> In the days whe I learned Latin I would get 0 out of 10 for a
>> translation like that. I suspect the rest is no better.
>>
>
>Did your teacher know Latin?
>
>Do you know Swedish?
>
>I have no doubt that a more polished translation can
>be done.
Its not the polish. Its the accuracy I am questioning. In any case, I
am not criticising your translation. I am relying on your translation
to criticise that of R. Stein which I originally quoted when I made my
comment.
>
>But I have likewise no doubt that my translation is
>faithful to the original. Do note that this discussion
>is crossposted to soc.culture.nordic.
>
My apologies. I didn't intend/expect that you would take my criticism
as applying to you. I have already criticised the accuracy and quality
of Stein's earlier translation/paraphrase and I was relying on your
translation to confirm my original suspicions.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On 05 Jun 2003 Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
Not according to the fragmentary translations I have received via
email. That's why I'm waiting for a complete and reliable translation
into english.
Eric Stevens
Jonathan Stone
><inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in
>news:CkLDa.10308$mU6....@newsb.telia.net in
>soc.history.medieval:
>
>> Brian,
>> it's you who doesn't understand Swedish as well as you have
>Lying again, I expect.
Brian,
I'm not sure "lying" is appropriate. Inger's grasp on reality
genuinely seems to be lacking in opposable thumbs.
Stein R.
I certainly *could* do a sentence by sentence trans-
lation on the fly from one of the foreign languages
I am fluent in (Swedish) into another foreign language
I also can use fairly well (English).
Can *you* understand simple words like "summary" in
your *own* language, oh great expert on 14th century
"scandinavian" runestone carvings ?
The text in the following paragraph is a direct sentence
by sentence translation from Swedish to English:
Archaelogist Birgitta Wallace, who worked on the ex-
cavations at L'anse aux Meadowes and have studied the
Kensignton runestone for years, says in comment to
Wolter's claims that she still has seen nothing to make
her change her opinion that the runestone is an 1800s
fake. "Which doesn't make it uninteresting - it is an
interesting example of the creativity of scandinavian
settlers, rather than a milestone in American archaeo-
logy".
Grin,
Stein
Inger E Johansson
Dagens Nyheter(DN) Saturday 31 May 2003
"FAKED" RUNESTONE MIGHT BE GENUINE
It is a runestone and it's American. But is it authentic or is it a forgery?
The Kensington stone has been controversial and discussed since 1898, when
a Swedish immigrant by the name of Olof Ohman - Öhman in the old country -
dug it up from the ground on his farm in Kensington, Minnesota, while
clearing trees on a hill/hillock.
Now the intensive debate regarding the runescript, telling about Goths and
Norwegians on an expedition westward from Vinland in 1362 and records that
ten of them were killed, continues.
Is it a forgery from 1800's Minnesota, a joke, a result of Geatish[observe
that götisk = Geatish, and gotisk = Gothic] romanticism diffuses tendency
from the Nordic[countries implied] to the American prairie?
Or is it a sign/proof for Nordic men reaching this area in the middle of the
North American continent three hundred and sixty two years after the first
Vikings reach their Vinland on the continents North Eastern horn/areas and
that more than one century before Columbus reached America?
This fall the Kensington runestone will be exhibited at the Historical
Museum in Stockholm - and the debate continues. The fight/conflict now as
well as a hundred years ago is between established archaeologists,
historians, and linguists on one side and enthusiastic, energetic amateur
researchers on the other.
But now, probably for the first time ever, the latter's thesis and
observations starts to be met with a portion of respect and taken seriously
by the former.
Richard Nielsen is a retired engineer and a well paid consultant for the
American oil industry based in Houston, Texas. He is an expert on
oil-pipelines under seas and much more. For the last fifteen years he has
devoted his sparetime and his long journeys by air to study Medieval Swedish
documents trying to find support/evidence for the language and the runes on
the Kensingtone stone being medieval.
Scott Wolter is a geologist and specialist in species of rocks, cement and
concrete. He has a company of his own and a laboratory in St Paul,
Minnesota. After the terrorist attack 11th September 2001 he helped to
analyse the damage on Pentagon, the American defence department in
Washington. For three years [now] he has been examining/doing research on
the Kensinton runestone from a mineralogical and geological perspective.
If Nielsen's and Wolter's conclusion stand for a closer study/investigation
they are close to sensational.
The Kensington runestone itself are inside it's glass exhibition case in the
home district museum in Alexandria, Minnesota, some few 10 km[1 mil = 10 km,
ett par mil -> few 10 km] from where it was found. The stone is the big
attraction at the museum, located in the same hlock/house/building as the
town's chamber of commerce. Outside/outdoors there is a ten metre high "Big
Ole", many of the companies in the town have names with Viking in it and the
Catholic church' name is Our Lady of teh Runestone.
The director of the Museum Lu Ann Patton, married to the town's sheriff,
offer pizza. Richard Nielsen and Scott Wolter chat in a oral collegial
friendship [duel] subject soft and hard science.
Dick Nielsen's 'soft' argument for the Kensington runestone being carved in
1300's are hard inside and incontestable according to himself. A long line
of linguists and scholars of runescripts specially from Scandinavia have
claimed that several words and expressions found on Kensington stone are
modern and that they were impossible to have existed in the 1300's. The
[same] specialists have also claimed that some rune-signs on the stone came
in use much later and that other signs are pure invention.
But I have found all the word's they[the specialists] claimed to be
anachronistic, Richard Nielsen adds.
He maintain that he have found examples in handwritten documents proving
that people in 1300's in reality used verb in singular also for subject in
plural (such as in 'vi var' on Kensington stone instead of the more correct
'vi warum'), colloguial expressions such as in ("vi var ok fiske en dagh")
and words the critic [scientists] lame to be 1800's American [language]
("Ded", "from", "of west").
Most proud Richard Nielsen is to have punctured the critic put forward for
the word "opdagelsefard". Linguists have claimed that this word didn't exist
in the 1300's and that those who carved the stone in 1800's must have copied
it/that from contemporary Nordic-American papers where they use to write
about opdagelse, in other words discovery[voyages]/explorations.
Nielsen claime that the third letter in the word isn't a d-rune but a
th-rune and that the word is "opthagelse". This word can be found in
Medieval handwritten documents and can according to Nielsen mean
"acquisition. The men mentioned in the Kensington runestone's inscription
would in other words not be on an exploration voyage but a business trip to
collect or exchange something.
For the past one and a half year Richard Nielsen has had discussion by email
on a regular basis re. His findings with one of the leading experts, Henrik
Williams, Professor of Scandinavian languages at Uppsala University.
Williams see Nielsen's greatest advance in the fact that he has forced
investigators to take a more serious look at the Kensington Stone.
- In that sense Dick has forwarded the research. I don't believe him to have
solved all the linuistic and runic problems on the stone. He hasn't been
able to prove that it is an authentic runestone, but in more than one case
he has shown that words and expressions on the stone actually did occur in
Medieval documents. That hasn't been acknowledge by scholars before.
But/On the other hand, the Kensington runestone doesn't actually
"taste/smell" 1300's century, Henrik Williams adds.
- I find it hard to believe that people from the Nordic countries all the
sudden would create something so different from all other/ all known
linguistic monuments of the time [in question]. If the stone wasn't carved
in 1300's century it must be from the 1800's century, even if there are some
words and signs on the stone making it hard proving the stone being carved
in the 1800's.
But Geologist Scott Wolter believes himself to have found firm evidence/
indicium for the Kensington runestone's carving being much older than that.
Among other things he has compared the decomposition of mica on the
Kensington stone's cutted and carved surface with the mica on other alike
carved stones, grave stones in Maine.
The first results indicate according to Wolter that the mica still can be
found on two hundred year old gravestones. That's not the case on the
Kensington stone where almost all mica, biotit included, has vanished. That
process must have been going on for more than two hundred years. Wolter's
conclusive results are that the Kensington stone can' have been cutted and
carved by Nordic immigrate people in Minnesota in the second half of 1800's
century.
The final analyse isn't finished. Far less has the report been analysed and
judged by geologists specialist in runestones.
In an earlier report Scott Wolter compared the glaciation/decomposition of
pyrites, 'svavelkis', on different carved stones. His conclusions was that
the decomposition of the pyrites on the Kensington Stone clearly didn't take
as long time as the decomposition of mica but nevertheless took a
sufficiently long time to indicate that the stone couldn't have been carved
by Olof Ohman or any other Swedish or Norwegian immigrant [living] in
Minnesota.
Wolter's investigation has also shown traces of tree-roots on the
Kensingtone Stones' back. This seems to strengthen Ohman's testimony that
the stone was found inside roots from the Asp he was about to cut down.
- If they, with the aid of natural scietific methods, reach to the
conclusion that the stone must have been in the ground for 100 years or
more - then one have to arrive to the conclusion that it is as old as it's
proponents say - there is no other alternative. If that's the case one have
to work with it[the stone] as a genuine document and explain it in the best
possible way, Henrik Williams say.
He has suffered a good deal of criticism from colleagues for his engagement
in the Kensington Stone.
-They think that I encourage non-serious fanatics. But the opposite is the
case, by ignoring people and not answer their often legitimate questions you
diserve the science.
The archaeologist Birgitta Wallace one of those supervising the excavations
in the Viking Age settlement in Lanse aux Meadow on Newfoundland, by some
believed to be the Vinland of the Saga's. She has studied the Kensington
Stone for many years and still haven't found anything to change her hard
conviction that it's a forgery as a Medieval runstone.
- That doesn't make it unimportant. It's a monument for Scandinavian
immigrant's American archaeology, she say quoting her own words in the
catalogue for a hugh Viking Exhibition. It closed some weeks ago in St Pauls
after being shown in several museum in North America during three years.
...........................
The article is signed: Kurt Mälarsted.
- - - - - - - - -
translated 5th June 2003, Inger E Johansson.
Inger E Johansson
he who said it was it,
that's a Swedish idiom easily applied upon you!
Good Night. Better learn talking before you speak Brian.
Inger E
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns9391A6D05775Es...@129.250.170.93...
Inger E Johansson
are you really lining up for those who have to find a good recipe how to
cook a hat????? :-)
Be my guest.
Inger E
"Jonathan Stone" <jona...@Pescadero.DSG.Stanford.EDU> skrev i meddelandet
news:bbo86f$ii1$1...@Pescadero.DSG.Stanford.EDU...
Inger E Johansson
it's you who have no knowledge what so ever regarding methods used in
Historic Science. That's understandable.
That you throw a stone sitting in a pyramid of glass is not.
Inger E
"Jonathan Stone" <jona...@Pescadero.DSG.Stanford.EDU> skrev i meddelandet
news:bboajm$io6$1...@Pescadero.DSG.Stanford.EDU...
Stein R.
If you allow me to correct your translation just a little bit,
to preserve nuances better :
"Wolter's report is not quite ready yet. Furthermore, it has
not yet been analyzed and evaluated by geologists who are
experts on runestones".
Basically the entire article can be summarized as : "enthus-
iastic amateurs think it is a real runestone. Experts in the
field are sceptical. New 'proof' has been offered by the amateur
enthusiasts, but the 'proof' has not yet been evaluated by
competent pros. *If* the proof should hold, then it would be a
big surprise".
Hardly the stuff to wax lyrical about, if you are a runehead.
Grin,
Stein
Jonathan Stone
Inger E Johansson <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
>Jonathan,
>it's you who have no knowledge what so ever regarding methods used in
>Historic Science. That's understandable.
>That you throw a stone sitting in a pyramid of glass is not.
So where are those references from the anonymous sources with access
to `secret' Vatican library documents which you claimed some years
back? Or the amazing details which you claimed to be forthcoming, uh,
wasn't it last summer?
Brian M. Scott
(Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>In article <Xns9391A6D05775Es...@129.250.170.93>,
>Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>On 05 Jun 2003 "Inger E Johansson"
>><inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in
>>news:CkLDa.10308$mU6....@newsb.telia.net in
>>soc.history.medieval:
>>> Brian,
>>> it's you who doesn't understand Swedish as well as you have
>>> been pretending for the last years. [...]
>>Lying again, I expect.
>I'm not sure "lying" is appropriate. Inger's grasp on reality
>genuinely seems to be lacking in opposable thumbs.
Oh, I routinely make allowances for her unsure grasp of
intellectual reality, but I expect her to do a *bit* better with
mundane reality.
Brian
erilar
jona...@Pescadero.DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
LOVELY description 8-)
Brian M. Scott
<shrug> Possibly you're getting poor translations. More likely
you're getting decent ones and applying the Eric Stevens filter.
Those in sci.arch, at least, know how ... conveniently ... you
interpret the English language.
tkavanagh
>
> Translated text from the article in DN:
<SNIP>
Whew.
What a hodge-podge of bad English grammar and syntax.
And no new information.
tk
Inger E Johansson
had you asked around you would have known about what's going on and maybe
also seen a documentary which have been pre-viewed by the Professors who
filmed it.
Inger E
"Jonathan Stone" <jona...@Pescadero.DSG.Stanford.EDU> skrev i meddelandet
news:bbol4k$jb0$1...@Pescadero.DSG.Stanford.EDU...
Inger E Johansson
two essential new information were presented -
the mineral mica's glaciation over time
we knew about the mica's weathering, that's not the same thing even if the
syntax was and grammar was bad. Btw that was due to the simple fact that the
sentence-grammatic-building followed the Swedish text instead of the
traditional translation where word-placement and grammar usually follows the
new language and information might be lost.
the fact that one of this world's leading scholars for the period gave his
view..
Inger E
"tkavanagh" <tkav...@indiana.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:3EDFE084...@indiana.edu...
Eric Stevens
wrote:
There is new information about Scott Wolters' progress.
Williams seem to be firming up his, albeit conditional, opinion.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Inger has posted a translation very similar to the ones I have
received. People can read it and make up their own mind as to the
accuracy of Stein's so called summary.
Eric Stevens
George Black
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:erilarloFRY-2BA6...@news.airstreamcomm.net...
: In article <bboajm$io6$1...@Pescadero.DSG.Stanford.EDU>,
: jona...@Pescadero.DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
:
: > In article <Xns9391A6D05775Es...@129.250.170.93>,
: > Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
: > >On 05 Jun 2003 "Inger E Johansson"
: > ><inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in
: > >news:CkLDa.10308$mU6....@newsb.telia.net in
: > >soc.history.medieval:
: > >
: > >> Brian,
: > >> it's you who doesn't understand Swedish as well as you have
: > >> been pretending for the last years. [...]
: >
: > >Lying again, I expect.
: >
: >
: > Brian,
: >
: > I'm not sure "lying" is appropriate. Inger's grasp on reality
: > genuinely seems to be lacking in opposable thumbs.
: >
:
: LOVELY description 8-)
:
: --
That has to be one of the best seen in here......
--
_________________________________________
George Black
ICQ#: 6963409
More ways to contact me: http://wwp.icq.com/6963409
_________________________________________
Home page: http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/
Stein R.
>
> "tkavanagh" <tkav...@indiana.edu> skrev i meddelandet
> news:3EDFE084...@indiana.edu...
> > Inger E Johansson wrote:
> > >
> > > Translated text from the article in DN:
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > Whew.
> >
> > What a hodge-podge of bad English grammar and syntax.
> >
> > And no new information.
> >
> > tk
>
> two essential new information were presented -
> the mineral mica's glaciation over time we knew
> about the mica's weathering, that's not the same
> thing even if the syntax was and grammar was bad.
<snip>
> the fact that one of this world's leading scholars
> for the period gave his view..
So, to summarize instead of Ingerize:
1) For Inger, the fact that some Swedish journalist
has interviewed Scott Wolters and managed to summa-
rize in a daily newspaper Wolters theories (basically,
that the decomposition of pyrite and biotite on the
scratched surface of the rock indicate that the rock
was scratched before 1800), is taken as new "evidence"
that the KRS is real and the sceptics are wrong.
She places no weight on the accompanying piece of in-
formation that "the analyzis is not finished and has
not been reviewed and verified by geologists who are
experts on runestones".
and
2) She is also impressed by the fact that a Swedish linguist
Williams says that "*if* it can be proved by scientific geo-
logical means that the text was scratched before 1800, then
obviously it was not scratched after 1800, and we will have
to reevaluate our other arguments about the linguistic prob-
lems with the KRS".
But as in the first bullet above, she places no importance
on the comments from Williams that "I absolutely do *not*
think that american amateur linguist Dick Nielsen has solved
all the linguistic and runological problems with the stone",
and "I have difficulty believing that people from the Nordic
countries so suddenly would create something that so signifi-
cantly diverges from all other preserved scratched monuments
from that period".
To people who are not runeheads, the significant part of
the article is
a) There exists a newish theory about the degradation the
scratched surface of the rock. The new theory claims that
the degradation of pyrite and biotite in the scratched
areas indicate that the scratches were added before 1800.
The theory is advanced by an enthusiastic amateur, the anal-
ysis is not finished, the analysis has not been properly pub-
lished, and it has not been properly tested and verified by
professional geologists that are experts on runestones.
Ie - it is too early to say whether this theory also will
be shot down. It is certainly *way* too early to say that
the theory *proves* that the KRS is a real runestone from
the 1300s.
and
b) two established experts, one linguist, one archaeologist,
both say that they are sceptical about the authenticity of
the KRS.
The linguist, who presumably know little or nothing about
geology, says that (paraphrased) "*if* proper scientific
geological testing proves that the scratched inscription
on the stone was done before 1800, then obviously one has
to accept that the text was not carved after 1800, even
though he thinks it weird that the text is so linguisti-
cally different from anything else known to be from the
1300s".
The comment of linguist Williams here displays something
one would wish to see on the account of runeheads once in
a while : a quality known as "intellectual integrity" or
"intellectual honesty".
Instead, what one sees from runeheads is the wholesale
acceptance of fanciful new hypothesises as a better ex-
planation for the observed data points then the existing
theory, even before these new hypothesises have not been
through a proper scientific review process.
In other words, the amateurs are breaking the first rule
of good scientific work: always test your own hypothesis
rigorously, looking for *flaws* in it, and expose it to
the review of other who know the subject so they also can
look for flaws in your hypothesis, *before* you replace
the existing theory with your new theory.
Amateurs look for stuff that will "prove" that their
theory is "right".
Professionals look for stuff that will prove that their
theory is wrong and must be abandoned.
It is rather easy to see what approach is the best.
Grin,
Stein
Seppo Renfors
"Stein R." wrote:
>
> Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 04:31:00 GMT, "Inger E Johansson"
> > <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Those who believe that KRS is a fake and can read Swedish might be better of
> > >reading this article from one of Sweden's most respectable paper 'Dagens
> > >Nyheter'
> > >
> > >http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=597&a=147406&previousRenderType=2
> > >
> >
> > Is there an english translation of the full article?
> >
> > Eric Stevens
>
> Here is a summary of the main points in the article :
>
> "Fake runestone *might* be real"
>
> This fall the Kensington runestone will be exhibited at
> the Historical museum in Stockholm, and the controversy
> continues. The fight is still, as it was a 100 years ago,
> between established archaelogists, historians and linguists
> on one side (who believe it is a fake) and enthusiastic,
> energic amateur researchers on the other side.
>
> Then they refer to theories by two Americans, Scott Wolter
> and Richard Nielsen" and continue: *If* their claims can
> pass a closer review, it will be a sensation.
>
> Basically, the article says that there are some people
> (which are described as enthusiastic amateur researchers)
> who belive the stone is a real runestone.
>
> But the article also finish the review of both Nielsens
> claims and Wolter's claims by presumably well known
> Swedish scientists comment on the claims.
>
> Henrik Williams, professor of Nordic languages at the
> University of Uppsala, says that although Nielsen has
> force linguists to admit that the language is not proof
> that is is fake, neither it is proof that it is real,
> and Williams still thinks that this "runestone" is too
> different from other runestones to be credible.
I'm writing this off-line, so I can't verify the accuracy of this
summary for the moment. However assuming it is, then the statement
"neither it is proof that it is real" will be the statement that the
die-hard "anti pre-Columbian contact" Ostrich people will hang their
hat on.
Of course it is well known that a negative cannot be proven - ie it is
NOT possible to ever prove that the KRS is NOT a fake - however the
positive CAN be proven, that the KRS IS a fake. This now makes it even
harder for the Ostrich to do so, but the task is THEIRS to prove it is
a "fake" - anything else is taking leave of their senses.
> Archaelogisk Birgitta Wallace,
...is one person who's opinions must be rejected as being seriously
biased. She is actively anti KRS, in a political manner - not
scientific.
[..]
--
SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that privilege "
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seppo Renfors
"Stein R." wrote:
>
> Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 04:31:00 GMT, "Inger E Johansson"
> > <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Those who believe that KRS is a fake and can read Swedish might be better of
> > >reading this article from one of Sweden's most respectable paper 'Dagens
> > >Nyheter'
> > >
> > >http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=597&a=147406&previousRenderType=2
> > >
> >
> > Is there an english translation of the full article?
> >
> > Eric Stevens
>
> Here is a summary of the main points in the article :
>
> "Fake runestone *might* be real"
Well, the above IS a misrepresentation. Properly translated with
correct emphasis as in the text is:
"Fake" runestone can be genuine.
THAT is what the head line says! But they don't really have much of an
idea of the geography in USA "den amerikanska prärien" or "the
American prairie".... in MINNESOTA? :-)
> This fall the Kensington runestone will be exhibited at
> the Historical museum in Stockholm, and the controversy
> continues. The fight is still, as it was a 100 years ago,
> between established archaelogists, historians and linguists
> on one side (who believe it is a fake) and enthusiastic,
> energic amateur researchers on the other side.
>
> Then they refer to theories by two Americans, Scott Wolter
> and Richard Nielsen" and continue: *If* their claims can
> pass a closer review, it will be a sensation.
There is an added emphasis NOT present in the text - that adds Stein's
personal bias to it.
"OM NIELSENS OCH WOLTERS slutsatser håller för närmare granskning är
de närmast sensationella."
"If Nielsen's and Wolter's conclusions hold up on closer inspection it
is nearest sensational"
>
> Basically, the article says that there are some people
> (which are described as enthusiastic amateur researchers)
> who belive the stone is a real runestone.
I would have thought this was important:
"Williams tycker att Nielsens största framsteg är att han tvingat
forskarna att börja se allvarligt på Kensingtonstenen."
"Williams believes that Nielsen's greatest achievement is that he has
forced researchers to take the KRS seriously."
Another important passage not mentioned:
"- I den meningen har Dick fört forskningen framåt. Jag tycker absolut
inte att
han löst alla språkliga och runologiska problem med stenen. Han har
inte
kunnat visa att den är en äkta runsten, men i ett antal fall har han
visat att ord
och uttryck på stenen faktiskt kan förekomma i medeltida skrifter. Det
har man
inte tidigare erkänt från vetenskapligt håll."
"In that was Dick has advanced the research. I don't believe he has
solved all linguistic and runology problems on the stone. He has not
been able to show it is a genuine runestone, but in many cases he has
shown that words and expressions on the stone factually can be found
in medieval scripts. [Something] That has not been acknowledged
earlier from the academic side."
> But the article also finish the review of both Nielsens
> claims and Wolter's claims by presumably well known
> Swedish scientists comment on the claims.
>
> Henrik Williams, professor of Nordic languages at the
> University of Uppsala, says that although Nielsen has
> force linguists to admit that the language is not proof
> that is is fake, neither it is proof that it is real,
> and Williams still thinks that this "runestone" is too
> different from other runestones to be credible.
That is NOT what the article says at all! What are you -a bloody
con-merchant? This is what comes closest to your fabrications:
"- Jag har svårt att tro att människor från Norden helt plötsligt
skulle skapa något som så gravt avviker från alla andra språkmonument
vi har från den tiden. Om stenen inte ristades på 1300-talet måste den
vara från 1800-talet, även om det finns en del ord och tecken på
stenen som gör att det inte är särskilt lätt att visa att den ristades
på 1800-talet."
"I have difficulty believing people from the North, suddenly should
create something that departs from all other talk/language monuments
(runestones presumably) we have from that time. If the stone wasn't
carved in the 1300's it must have been in the 1800's, even though
there are some words and signs on the stone that makes it not very
easy to show that it has been carved in the 1800's."
It then goes on to say Scott Wolter has found evidence of it being
older than that (1800's). The article also says this:
"Wolters undersökningar av stenen har också röjt spår av rötter på
Kensingtonstenens undersida. Detta tycks styrka Ohmans vittnesmål att
stenen påträffades insnärjd i rötterna av den asp han skulle fälla."
"Wolter's studies of the stone has also shown evidence of roots on the
KRS's underside. This tends to strike Ohman's evidence that the stone
was found entangled in the roots of the Asp he (was) to cut down."
This is well known evidence already established to be so. But Williams
goes on to say this:
"- Om de, med naturvetenskapliga metoder, kommer fram till att stenen
måste ha legat i jorden i hundra år eller mer - ja då måste man dra
slutsatsen att den är så gammal som dess förespråkare säger, något
annat alternativ finns inte. Då får man försöka arbeta med den som ett
genuint dokument och förklara den på bästa sätt, säger Henrik
Williams."
"If the environmental methods show that the stone must have lain in
the ground for a hundred years or more - I then must draw the
conclusion that it is as old as those supporters of it say, no other
alternative exists. Then one must work with it as a genuine document
and explain it the best way [possible], says Henrik Williams."
There is nothing, absolutely NOTHING that justifies Stein's claim
"Williams still thinks that this "runestone" is too different from
other runestones to be credible"!!
>
> Archaelogisk Birgitta Wallace, who worked on the ex-
> cavations at L'anse aux Meadowes and have studied the
> Kensignton runestone for years, says in comment to
> Wolter's claims that she still has seen nothing to make
> her change her opinion that the runestone is an 1800s
> fake. "Which doesn't make it uninteresting - it is an
> interesting example of the creativity of scandinavian
> settlers, rather than a milestone in American archaeo-
> logy".
What a FRAUD this Stein has turned out to be! Birgitta Wallace does
NOT mention Wolter at all!
"- Det innebär inte att den är ointressant. Den är ett monument över
skandinaviska invandrares kreativitet, ett bra exempel på tidig
nordisk-amerikansk folkkultur snarare än en milstolpe i amerikansk
arkeologi,"
"It doesn't mean it (KRS) is uninteresting. It is a monument over
Scandinavian immigrants creativity, a good example of early
Nordic-American folk culture rather than a milestone in American
archaeology,"
But then Birgitta Wallace has been totally discredited already, as far
as her utterances goes regarding the KRS!
>
> The article did not say anything much new in any direction:
> Enthustiastic amateurs still think it is real. The jury is
> still out on some of the claims by Scott Wolter, but established
> Swedish experts in the field are still sceptical and inclined
> to think it is a fake.
This is plain editorialising by Stein and not part of the article. In
fact Prof Henrik Williams supports exactly what I have been saying
for a long time now. It it can be shown by evidence that the stone was
indeed found in-situe as stated by Oham, then it must be genuine.
There is no possibility of denting the evidence of it having been
found where it was actually found. AND that it had to have been there
for longer than white man had been in the area.
>
> Grin,
> Stein, who can read Swedish as good as Inger, but in addition
> is able to not let over-enthusiasm color my perception of what
> I have read.
Stein MAY be able to read Swedish, but he is VERY much inclined to
misrepresent what IS said, and add personal BIAS to his FAKE
"interpretation" of it! What a bloody sleazy SHONK he turned out to
be!
Seppo Renfors
Soren Larsen wrote:
>
> "Inger E. Johansson" <inger_e....@telia.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:77195e1eb3be52c70d3...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> > "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
> > news:bbmmsr$b51rj$1...@ID-131301.news.dfncis.de
> >
> > >
> > > "Stein R." <st...@nospam.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > > news:3EDEDB...@nospam.com...
> > > > Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > Henrik Williams, professor of Nordic languages at the
> > > > University of Uppsala, says that although Nielsen has
> > > > force linguists to admit that the language is not proof
> > > > that is is fake, neither it is proof that it is real,
> > > > and Williams still thinks that this "runestone" is too
> > > > different from other runestones to be credible.
> > >
> > >
> > > " Jag tycker absolut inte att han löst alla språkliga och
> > > runologiska problem med stenen"
> > >
> > > "I do absolutely not think that he (Richard Nielsen)
> > > has solved all the linguistic and runological problems
> > > with the stone"
> > >
> > > Henrik Williams
> >
> > You missed the most essential part and stoped with one of the few
> > restricted sentences of William's.
> >
>
> Oh! You mean sentences like this:
>
> " Jag har svårt att tro att människor från Norden helt plötsligt skulle
> skapa något som så gravt avviker från alla andra språkmonument vi
> har från den tiden."
>
> "I find it hard to believe that northerners suddenly would
> create something that deviates so seriously from other linguistic
> monuments of that time (14th c)"
>
> Henrik Williams
Stein, meet Soren, a compatriot with like ideals to yours!
Seppo Renfors
Michael Zalar wrote:
>
> "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message news:<bbmmsr$b51rj$1...@ID-131301.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> > " Jag tycker absolut inte att han löst alla språkliga och
> > runologiska problem med stenen"
> >
> > "I do absolutely not think that he (Richard Nielsen)
> > has solved all the linguistic and runological problems
> > with the stone"
> >
> > Henrik Williams
>
> I have discussed the KRS with Dr. Williams, and he stated in
> correspondence with me that if the geochemical analysis shows the
> stone could not be a forgery, then he would admit the runestone was
> authentic.
This was included in the article Inger pointed to, but "conveniently"
ignored by certain people pretending to "translate" the text.
> One of the main reasons that the KRS will be displayed in Sweden is so
> that the geologists there can attempt to validate Scott Wolter's work.
> If it can be shown with a high degree of probability that the stone
> laid in the ground for at least a hundred years, and that the
> linguistic objections can be overcome, then I think there is no doubt
> that the stone will become regarded as authentic.
>
> Frankly I think the countdown to authenticity has begun.
>
Frankly, I believe it has already been done. All that is required is
to show that it was under those tree roots to before white settlement
in the area. From what I know, I believe this is possible to do
already.
Seppo Renfors
"Brian M. Scott" wrote:
>
> On 05 Jun 2003 Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
> news:414udvgpqhrs1u3kb...@4ax.com in
> soc.history.medieval:
>
[..]
> > The question is what have you left out and what have you
> > put in?
>
> The summary is accurate.
The hell it is! It is FAR from that - it is FULL of misrepresentations
and personal BIAS as well as downright lies!
What part of a SHONK don't you understand?
You forget there ARE people around who CAN read the text! YOU are not
one of them having made the claim you have!
Seppo Renfors
OK big mouth, translate the article IF you can that is! Perhaps you
care to show YOUR "intellectual" capabilities, eh? Oh.... sorry, you
ARE doing exactly that - showing the level of your "intellect"! Little
school yard kiddies stuff of "nyahna, nynyahna, nyahna..." oh yeah,
that's REAL "intellect".. Pfffttttt....
ED...@gyldendal.dk
<Ren...@not.ollis.net.au> wrote:
>
>Stein, meet Soren, a compatriot with like ideals to yours!
>--
>
Someone ought to inform Seppo 'The Pinhead' Renfors that
Denmark and Norway are two different countries.
Soren Larsen
Seppo Renfors
tkavanagh wrote:
>
> Inger E Johansson wrote:
> >
> > Translated text from the article in DN:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Whew.
>
> What a hodge-podge of bad English grammar and syntax.
What a pathetic comment! The translation was accurate and could be
understood. You know you could always have translated it yourself
instead of merely whining about it!
> And no new information.
...which would then mean that you have understood it to be genuine for
a long time, right!
ED...@gyldendal.dk
<Ren...@not.ollis.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>Michael Zalar wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have discussed the KRS with Dr. Williams, and he stated in
>> correspondence with me that if the geochemical analysis shows the
>> stone could not be a forgery, then he would admit the runestone was
>> authentic.
>
>This was included in the article Inger pointed to, but "conveniently"
>ignored by certain people pretending to "translate" the text.
>
If the stone can be shown not to be a forgery, then he would admit
that it was authentic.
Do you really need "information" of this kind Seppo?
Seppo 'The Pinhead' Renfors strikes again
Soren Larsen
Thomas McDonald
"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.ollis.net.au> wrote in message
news:3EE03A62...@not.ollis.net.au...
<snip>
But they don't really have much of an
> idea of the geography in USA "den amerikanska prärien" or "the
> American prairie".... in MINNESOTA? :-)
Seppo,
I'm not sure what your smiley means here, but Minnesota (especially the
south and west parts) has quite a bit of prairie. One of my favorite public
radio shows is "The Prairie Home Companion", based on the home town of its
host, Garrison Keillor. That home town is Anoka, Minnesota, and is in east
central Minnesota. I'd guess that about one-third of the state qualifies as
prairie.
It's a big state, almost the size of England, Scotland and Wales
combined. Plenty of room for scads of different geography and biomes.
Tom McDonald
<snip>
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Inger E Johansson wrote:
'scratched'! Admirable spin. You should get a job in public relations
>
> She places no weight on the accompanying piece of in-
>formation that "the analyzis is not finished and has
>not been reviewed and verified by geologists who are
>experts on runestones".
Work in progress ... dislike oozing from every pore.
>
> and
>
>2) She is also impressed by the fact that a Swedish linguist
>Williams says that "*if* it can be proved by scientific geo-
>logical means that the text was scratched before 1800, then
>obviously it was not scratched after 1800, and we will have
>to reevaluate our other arguments about the linguistic prob-
>lems with the KRS".
" ... a Swedish linguist Williams ... " Luvverly! Professor of
Scandinavian languages at Uppsala University and probably Sweden's
foremost philologist so Stein chooses to describe him as "a Swedish
linguist". A bit condescending, isn't it?
>
> But as in the first bullet above, she places no importance
>on the comments from Williams that "I absolutely do *not*
>think that american amateur linguist Dick Nielsen has solved
>all the linguistic and runological problems with the stone",
>and "I have difficulty believing that people from the Nordic
>countries so suddenly would create something that so signifi-
>cantly diverges from all other preserved scratched monuments
>from that period".
Just as you have glossed over Williams saying of Nielsen:
"In that sense Dick has forwarded the research. I don't believe
him to have solved all the linuistic and runic problems on the
stone. He hasn't been able to prove that it is an authentic
runestone, but in more than one case he has shown that words
and expressions on the stone actually did occur in Medieval
documents. That hasn't been acknowledge by scholars before".
Now that's an advance. That's news, but Stein prefres not to talk
about it.
>
> To people who are not runeheads, the significant part of
>the article is
>
> a) There exists a newish theory about the degradation the
> scratched surface of the rock. The new theory claims that
> the degradation of pyrite and biotite in the scratched
> areas indicate that the scratches were added before 1800.
Stein, now you are getting obvious. The words 'scratch' or 'scratched'
do not appear in the translation and are entirely your own 'spin' on
the article.
>
> The theory is advanced by an enthusiastic amateur, the anal-
> ysis is not finished, the analysis has not been properly pub-
> lished, and it has not been properly tested and verified by
> professional geologists that are experts on runestones.
OK - you don't want to be informed about work in progress on the KRS,
even if does seem to be getting somewhere. Especially if it is about
work in progress on the KRS.
>
> Ie - it is too early to say whether this theory also will
> be shot down. It is certainly *way* too early to say that
> the theory *proves* that the KRS is a real runestone from
> the 1300s.
That's certainly correct but you don't have distort everything to
justify that conclusion.
>
> and
>
> b) two established experts, one linguist, one archaeologist,
> both say that they are sceptical about the authenticity of
> the KRS.
I hope you are not referring to Birgitta Wallace as an expert. Barry
J. Hanson has shown that when closely examined not one of Wallaces
criticisms will stand close examination. To a great extent she relies
on the opinions of 'experts' of the past who have never properly
studied the KRS. All of their opinions have been discredited for one
reason or another.
>
> The linguist, who presumably know little or nothing about
> geology, says that (paraphrased) "*if* proper scientific
> geological testing proves that the scratched inscription
> on the stone was done before 1800, then obviously one has
> to accept that the text was not carved after 1800, even
> though he thinks it weird that the text is so linguisti-
> cally different from anything else known to be from the
> 1300s".
Oh sure. The linguist knows nothing about geology. Does it matter that
the geologist knows nothing about linguistics?
>
> The comment of linguist Williams here displays something
>one would wish to see on the account of runeheads once in
>a while : a quality known as "intellectual integrity" or
>"intellectual honesty".
But would you recognise it if it bit you on the ankle?
>
> Instead, what one sees from runeheads is the wholesale
>acceptance of fanciful new hypothesises as a better ex-
>planation for the observed data points then the existing
>theory, even before these new hypothesises have not been
>through a proper scientific review process.
Existing theory. Pray what existing theory? Do tell.
>
> In other words, the amateurs are breaking the first rule
>of good scientific work: always test your own hypothesis
>rigorously, looking for *flaws* in it, and expose it to
>the review of other who know the subject so they also can
>look for flaws in your hypothesis, *before* you replace
>the existing theory with your new theory.
Aah but they are doing that. So too are the few professionals who have
properly looked at the JRS.
>
> Amateurs look for stuff that will "prove" that their
>theory is "right".
>
> Professionals look for stuff that will prove that their
>theory is wrong and must be abandoned.
>
> It is rather easy to see what approach is the best.
Sure. But which one is presently being applied to the KRS?
Eric Stevens
Inger E. Johansson
>
>
> > Michael Zalar wrote:
> > >
> > > "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message news:<bbmmsr$b51rj$1...@ID-131301.news.dfncis.de>...
> > >
<snip>
> >
> > Frankly I think the countdown to authenticity has begun.
> >
>
> Frankly, I believe it has already been done. All that is required is
> to show that it was under those tree roots to before white settlement
> in the area. From what I know, I believe this is possible to do
> already.
You are correct. Next thing to be discussed is how someone, scholar or
non-scholar can have missed documentation of more than 1000 European
style graves noted by the first explorers and the first settlers....
where
in one of the longhouse areas south of the Great Lakes. More about that
in my book.
Inger E
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Eric Stevens
I don't know whether or not Seppo needs it but that information should
be restored if it has been (deliberately?) omitted from the summary of
the translation.
>
>Seppo 'The Pinhead' Renfors strikes again
>
>Soren Larsen
Eric Stevens
ED...@gyldendal.dk
1) It is self-evident that if the stone is proven 'not a forgery' then
it must be it must authentic. This is exactly the kind of
"information" that you would leave out of a summary.
2) Our Seppo today:
"Of course it is well known that a negative cannot be proven - ie it
is NOT possible to ever prove that the KRS is NOT a fake"
Why the h*ll then does he in another post find it important what
Williams would do if the stone was proven "not a forgery".
A confused little fellow, I say.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
m_z...@hotmail.com (Michael Zalar) wrote:
> If it can be shown with a high degree of probability that the stone
> laid in the ground for at least a hundred years,
The question is not whether or not the stone was underground for at
least 100 years. It is whether or not the inscription has been. The
stone should be roughly the same age as other stones from the same
area. Though I do not remember any comparison to other stones from the
area mentioned on the web. The problem is the date of the inscription.
I find it hard to believe that it will be ever established by chemical
means as weathering effects are far from uniform.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
tkavanagh
>
> tkavanagh wrote:
> >
> > Inger E Johansson wrote:
> > >
> > > Translated text from the article in DN:
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > Whew.
> >
> > What a hodge-podge of bad English grammar and syntax.
>
> What a pathetic comment! The translation was accurate and could be
> understood.
with a hell of a lot of work and guessing about what was actually
written in the original.
You know you could always have translated it yourself
> instead of merely whining about it!
I was not "whining" about the *original*, I was commenting that the
grammar and syntax in the *translation* is terrible.
>
> > And no new information.
>
> ...which would then mean that you have understood it to be genuine for
> a long time, right!
That conclusion is not supported by the evidence of the article.
tk
Alan Crozier
news:bbqbim$pfj$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> In article <a458909b.03060...@posting.google.com>,
> m_z...@hotmail.com (Michael Zalar) wrote:
>
> > If it can be shown with a high degree of probability that the stone
> > laid in the ground for at least a hundred years,
>
> The question is not whether or not the stone was underground for at
> least 100 years. It is whether or not the inscription has been. The
> stone should be roughly the same age as other stones from the same
> area. Though I do not remember any comparison to other stones from the
> area mentioned on the web. The problem is the date of the inscription.
> I find it hard to believe that it will be ever established by chemical
> means as weathering effects are far from uniform.
At last a sensible comment on this topic. I find it hard to believe that any
geological expert will be able to say anything with certainty about the age
of the inscription. That won't stop them from expressing opinions, however.
Alan
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Alan Crozier
Skatteberga 1392
247 92 Södra Sandby
Sweden
TO REPLY BY E-MAIL: change Crazier to Crozier
Eric Stevens
>On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 22:56:55 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 08:11:35 GMT, ED...@gyldendal.dk wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 16:32:14 +0930, Seppo Renfors
>>><Ren...@not.ollis.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Michael Zalar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have discussed the KRS with Dr. Williams, and he stated in
>>>>> correspondence with me that if the geochemical analysis shows the
>>>>> stone could not be a forgery, then he would admit the runestone was
>>>>> authentic.
>>>>
>>>>This was included in the article Inger pointed to, but "conveniently"
>>>>ignored by certain people pretending to "translate" the text.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If the stone can be shown not to be a forgery, then he would admit
>>>that it was authentic.
>>>
>>>Do you really need "information" of this kind Seppo?
>>
>>I don't know whether or not Seppo needs it but that information should
>>be restored if it has been (deliberately?) omitted from the summary of
>>the translation.
>>>
>>>Seppo 'The Pinhead' Renfors strikes again
>>>
>
>
>1) It is self-evident that if the stone is proven 'not a forgery' then
>it must be it must authentic. This is exactly the kind of
>"information" that you would leave out of a summary.
If you go back to the head of this part of the thread you will see
that this is not about the logic of the situation which, as you say,
is self evident. It is about Williams being prepared to change his
stance. THAT is the important information which was omitted.
>
>2) Our Seppo today:
>
>"Of course it is well known that a negative cannot be proven - ie it
>is NOT possible to ever prove that the KRS is NOT a fake"
>
>Why the h*ll then does he in another post find it important what
>Williams would do if the stone was proven "not a forgery".
>
>A confused little fellow, I say.
>
>Cheers
>Soren Larsen
Eric Stevens
Inger E Johansson
There are two conclusions presented in the article:
a) if SW's laboratory results are confirmed in independent tests here in
Sweden, then the KRS can't be an 1800's forgery.
b) if geological laboratory results prove the stone to have been in earth
more than 100 year, then Professor Williams believe the only possible
conclusion to be that KRS is genuine.
As long as a)-testing's result here in Sweden isn't at hand,
that's as long as the b) conclusion can't be said to be 100% true.
Inger E
Stein R.
>
> "Stein R." wrote:
> >
> > Eric Stevens wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 04:31:00 GMT, "Inger E Johansson"
> > > <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Those who believe that KRS is a fake and can read Swedish might be better of
> > > >reading this article from one of Sweden's most respectable paper 'Dagens
> > > >Nyheter'
> > > >
> > > >http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=597&a=147406&previousRenderType=2
> > > >
> > >
> > > Is there an english translation of the full article?
> > >
> > > Eric Stevens
> >
> > Here is a summary of the main points in the article :
> >
> > "Fake runestone *might* be real"
>
> Well, the above IS a misrepresentation. Properly translated with
> correct emphasis as in the text is:
>
> "Fake" runestone can be genuine.
I was *summarizing*, not translating word by word. Emphasis
was added by me.
The original headline said " 'fake' runestone might be/could
be genuine".
The main gist of the original article was not "we have to
acknowledge that we should stop calling it 'fake', since it
is very likely to be genuine", even if runeheads would have
liked that summary.
The main gist of the original article was "there is a group
of enthusiastic amateurs who claim that it is real, but despite
the removal of one linguistic objection, a well known profes-
sional linguistical expert is still sceptical. The enthusiasts
have also forwarded a claim that the inscription can be dated
by looking at the decay of the surface in the scratched/incised
area, but that claim has not been substantiated yet"
I think that you will find that "Fake runestone *might* be
real/genuine" is a fair representation.
> THAT is what the head line says! But they don't really have
> much of an idea of the geography in USA "den amerikanska
> prärien" or "the American prairie".... in MINNESOTA? :-)
Depends on how prissy you want to be. Western Minnesota is
not quite prairie, unlike e.g North Dakota, but neither is
it very far away from being prairie, from the viewpoint of
a visiting scandinavian journalist.
I have passed Alexandria quite a few times on I-94, heading
from the cities northwest towards Moorhead/Fargo, on my way
to an annual or semi-annual stay in Fargus Falls or Dalton
in Ottertail county.
And I have stopped in Alex a couple of times, even visited
the pride of the Alexandria chamber of commerce: The rune-
stone museum and the large plastic viking statue "Big Ole".
It is a Garrison Keilor (of "Prairie home companion" fame)
kind of area, flat and open, mostly rural - ie about what a
visiting Scandinavian knowing that he was in the midwest
might describe as prairie.
Technically, you still have not made it onto the prairie
proper until you cross the Red River of the north and head
into the more or less treeless grassy "nothing to break the
visual monotony anywhere in your field of vision for hours"
of northern Dakota.
But again, as I said - it depends on how prissy you want
to be. Calling the area prairie describes it well enough
for a Swedish audience to give the impression "flat and
open, not too densely populated, a bit rural".
Before you haste to tell me the population of Alexandria -
yes, Alex itself is a regional town of some size. The *area*
is rural.
It is also an irrelevant point wrt the Kensington Rune
Stone is fake (as most people, including most archaelogists
and linguists apparently believe) or real (as a group of
evangelizing enthusiasts believe).
> > This fall the Kensington runestone will be exhibited at
> > the Historical museum in Stockholm, and the controversy
> > continues. The fight is still, as it was a 100 years ago,
> > between established archaelogists, historians and linguists
> > on one side (who believe it is a fake) and enthusiastic,
> > energic amateur researchers on the other side.
> >
> > Then they refer to theories by two Americans, Scott Wolter
> > and Richard Nielsen" and continue: *If* their claims can
> > pass a closer review, it will be a sensation.
>
> There is an added emphasis NOT present in the text - that adds
> Stein's personal bias to it.
>
> "OM NIELSENS OCH WOLTERS slutsatser håller för närmare granskning är
> de närmast sensationella."
>
> "If Nielsen's and Wolter's conclusions hold up on closer inspection it
> is nearest sensational"
Again - I was summarizing, not translating. See above - the main
gist of the article is still "enthusiastic amateurs vs sceptical
profesionals, theories of enthusiasts not proved".
Whether you emphasize "if" or not, you do not change the meaning
of the sentence, and neither do you change the main message of the
original article.
> > Basically, the article says that there are some people
> > (which are described as enthusiastic amateur researchers)
> > who belive the stone is a real runestone.
>
> I would have thought this was important:
>
> "Williams tycker att Nielsens största framsteg är att han tvingat
> forskarna att börja se allvarligt på Kensingtonstenen."
>
> "Williams believes that Nielsen's greatest achievement is that he has
> forced researchers to take the KRS seriously."
>
> Another important passage not mentioned:
>
> "- I den meningen har Dick fört forskningen framåt. Jag
> tycker absolut inte att han löst alla språkliga och
> runologiska problem med stenen. Han har inte kunnat visa
> att den är en äkta runsten, men i ett antal fall har han
> visat att ord och uttryck på stenen faktiskt kan förekomma
> i medeltida skrifter. Det har man inte tidigare erkänt
> från vetenskapligt håll."
>
> "In that was Dick has advanced the research. I don't believe he has
> solved all linguistic and runology problems on the stone. He has not
> been able to show it is a genuine runestone, but in many cases he has
> shown that words and expressions on the stone factually can be found
> in medieval scripts. [Something] That has not been acknowledged
> earlier from the academic side."
Okay, now I see your point. That part might be the important
part for you and other runeheads, and that is probably what
Inger described as important news:
(paraphrased)
"Finally we have gotten someone outside our little group of
evangelizing amateur enthusiasts/nutcases to say in public
that one of the many things that formerly was used as an sure
indicator for 'obviously a hoax' has been proved to be weaker
than previously thought - the linguistic arguments *against*
the KRS has now been downgraded from 'obviously a hoax' to
'extremely unlikely to be genuine'".
Hooray and all that, old chap. I can certainly understand
that your lot would think that this was the main point of
the article, and important news, as it sort of upgrades your
own status from "obvious frauds" to merely "overly enthusiastic
idiots".
Also I can understand that you wouldn't want to acknowledge
that the main gist of the article still was "but that doesn't
make much difference, professionals in the field of linguistics
and archaelogy still think the KRS is a fake".
Quoting from your own translation above:
-> "- Jag har svårt att tro att människor från Norden helt
-> plötsligt skulle skapa något som så gravt avviker från
-> alla andra språkmonument vi har från den tiden.
->
-> "I have difficulty believing people from the North,
-> suddenly should create something that departs [so
-> radically, unless I misunderstand 'så gravt'] from
-> all other talk/language monuments (runestones pre-
-> sumably) we have from that time.
It certainly seems to me like professor Williams is
actually saying that the KRS is significantly different
from "all other language monuments we have from that
time".
It also seems to me that you and I agree in interpreting
"language monuments" as runestones.
Furthermore it seems like we agree about Williams saying
that he [Williams] has difficulty believing that people
from the nordic countries would have created something that
different.
Or as I summarized the point:
--> Williams still thinks that this "runestone" is too
--> different from other runestones to be credible.
Apart from your emotional/religious reaction to me
writing "runestone" in quotation marks instead of
genuflecting before saying it's holy name (KRS, that
is), what is your specific objection to my summary ?
> > Archaelogisk Birgitta Wallace, who worked on the ex-
> > cavations at L'anse aux Meadowes and have studied the
> > Kensignton runestone for years, says in comment to
> > Wolter's claims that she still has seen nothing to make
> > her change her opinion that the runestone is an 1800s
> > fake. "Which doesn't make it uninteresting - it is an
> > interesting example of the creativity of scandinavian
> > settlers, rather than a milestone in American archaeo-
> > logy".
>
> What a FRAUD this Stein has turned out to be! Birgitta
> Wallace does NOT mention Wolter at all!
You are indeed correct. I rechecked the original article.
I did not have basis for summarizing her position as if
she was *specifically* refuted Scott Wolters claims.
The original article first explained Scott Wolters arguments,
and then, in the next paragraph, said what I wrote above, with
the exception of the words "to Wolter's claims".
She said that she "*still* had seen nothing to make her change
her rock firm conviction that the runestone is an 1800s fake",
to do a fresh direct translation of the relevant sentence.
But it is not said specifically that the journalist had first
explained to her Scott Wolter's claims and asked her to comment
on them, or that her "still" includes "after being told of Scott
Wolter's claims".
That was conjecture on my part, based on my assumption
that any journalist that was any good at his job at all
surely would have asked her what she thought of Scott
Wolter's claims, and that "still" thus would implicitly
be a comment on Scott Wolter's claims as well.
I could be wrong, the journalist could have been inept,
and her comments could have been based on not having heard
of Scott Wolters at all, for all I know.
Is it important in any other way than as an emotional issue
for runeheads ?
> "- Det innebär inte att den är ointressant. Den är ett monument över
> skandinaviska invandrares kreativitet, ett bra exempel på tidig
> nordisk-amerikansk folkkultur snarare än en milstolpe i amerikansk
> arkeologi,"
>
> "It doesn't mean it (KRS) is uninteresting. It is a monument over
> Scandinavian immigrants creativity, a good example of early
> Nordic-American folk culture rather than a milestone in American
> archaeology,"
>
> But then Birgitta Wallace has been totally discredited already,
> as far as her utterances goes regarding the KRS!
Ah, an infidel has commented on the holy stone. Burn her ! Burn
her !
<gigle>
> > The article did not say anything much new in any direction:
> > Enthustiastic amateurs still think it is real. The jury is
> > still out on some of the claims by Scott Wolter, but established
> > Swedish experts in the field are still sceptical and inclined
> > to think it is a fake.
>
> This is plain editorialising by Stein and not part of the article.
> In fact Prof Henrik Williams supports exactly what I have been
> saying for a long time now. It it can be shown by evidence that
> the stone was indeed found in-situe as stated by Oham, then it
> must be genuine. There is no possibility of denting the evidence
> of it having been found where it was actually found. AND that it
> had to have been there for longer than white man had been in the
> area.
I believe the relevant part of the last paragraph is "if it can
be shown by evidence".
I am afraid that I wouldn't believe any more in any "evidence"
brought forward by your lot than I believed in the "evidence"
George Bush presented to support the need to go to war with Iraq.
This far, no credible, rock solid evidence of large stocks of
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has been found. Neither has
similar credible evidence for the veracity of the KRS been brought
forward.
In the absence of reproducible tests and unrefutable evidence,
it boils down to the question of whom you want to believe:
In one case:
enthusiastic evangelizing amateurs or
a sceptical professional third party, with no particular axe to grind,
In the other case:
people who wanted "a short victorious war" for political reasons or
the UN weapons inspectors, which again had no particular axe to grind.
I know who I'd put my money on, in the absence of conclusive
hard evidence either way.
> > Grin,
> > Stein, who can read Swedish as good as Inger, but in addition
> > is able to not let over-enthusiasm color my perception of what
> > I have read.
>
> Stein MAY be able to read Swedish, but he is VERY much inclined to
> misrepresent what IS said, and add personal BIAS to his FAKE
> "interpretation" of it! What a bloody sleazy SHONK he turned out to
> be!
Oh well, I do apologize for speaking disrespectfully of a
holy object (the KRS) in your personal ancestor worshipping
religion ("My ancestors were all over the world long before
Columbus, even in western/central Minnesota").
If you want to worship the KRS as a holy object, by all means
do. Ancestor worshipping is in principle no better and no worse
than most other religions, and in principle the attempts to prove
that the KRS is genuine no worse than claiming something along
the lines of "Scientic Examinations of the Shroud of Turin Will,
Real Soon Now, Prove Conclusively That Jesus Really Lived and
Performed Every Miracle Attributed to Him in the Bible" or some
such thing.
The problem with mixing religion and science is that science
cannot be limited to stay within the boundaries of religious
dogma.
Grin,
Stein
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Seppo Renfors wrote:
>>
>> "Stein R." wrote:
>> >
>> > Eric Stevens wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 04:31:00 GMT, "Inger E Johansson"
>> > > <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Those who believe that KRS is a fake and can read Swedish might be better of
>> > > >reading this article from one of Sweden's most respectable paper 'Dagens
>> > > >Nyheter'
>> > > >
>> > > >http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=597&a=147406&previousRenderType=2
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Is there an english translation of the full article?
>> > >
>> > > Eric Stevens
>> >
>> > Here is a summary of the main points in the article :
>> >
>> > "Fake runestone *might* be real"
>>
>> Well, the above IS a misrepresentation. Properly translated with
>> correct emphasis as in the text is:
>>
>> "Fake" runestone can be genuine.
>
> I was *summarizing*, not translating word by word. Emphasis
>was added by me.
Variously added, twisted and bent, and all presented as an accurate
summary.
Eric Stevens
Seppo Renfors
ED...@gyldendal.dk wrote:
>
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 16:32:14 +0930, Seppo Renfors
> <Ren...@not.ollis.net.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Michael Zalar wrote:
> >>
>
> >>
> >> I have discussed the KRS with Dr. Williams, and he stated in
> >> correspondence with me that if the geochemical analysis shows the
> >> stone could not be a forgery, then he would admit the runestone was
> >> authentic.
> >
> >This was included in the article Inger pointed to, but "conveniently"
> >ignored by certain people pretending to "translate" the text.
> >
>
> If the stone can be shown not to be a forgery, then he would admit
> that it was authentic.
So you are claiming to be able to achieve the impossible... WAY TO GO!
One has to admire your bravado - even if born from prejudice and
foolishness..... hmmm... perhaps for that very reason. Not many would
openly demonstrate such foolishness.
>
> Do you really need "information" of this kind Seppo?
>
> Seppo 'The Pinhead' Renfors strikes again
Ah, the sure sign of a Loser - having to resort to childish name
calling. Pooooooor Soren, hasn't grown up yet. Here have another
dummy... now don't spit it out again :-)
Seppo Renfors
.... and you have managed to claim such is possible :-)
>
> Why the h*ll then does he in another post find it important what
> Williams would do if the stone was proven "not a forgery".
It is because he is a "believer", and "believers" have "faith", and
trivialities like facts and evidence and the like don't count to such
people. Obviously you appear to be another to whom facts and realities
mean very little. After all when such a person starts to claim "it was
a magician... yada, yada, yada..." it is quite telling.
> A confused little fellow, I say.
>
> Cheers
> Soren Larsen
...and indeed that Soren is just that!
Seppo Renfors
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 06:17:06 +0200, "Stein R." <st...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
[..]
> > a) There exists a newish theory about the degradation the
> > scratched surface of the rock. The new theory claims that
> > the degradation of pyrite and biotite in the scratched
> > areas indicate that the scratches were added before 1800.
>
> Stein, now you are getting obvious. The words 'scratch' or 'scratched'
> do not appear in the translation and are entirely your own 'spin' on
> the article.
In fairness to that shonk, Stein, the Swedish word can have the
English meaning "scratched" as well - however the context dictates
"carved" should be used. He understand English well enough to know
this, but is deliberately using the "scratched" to be derogatory and
pour scorn on the KRS.
[..]
Seppo Renfors
Thomas McDonald wrote:
>
> "Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.ollis.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3EE03A62...@not.ollis.net.au...
>
> <snip>
>
> But they don't really have much of an
> > idea of the geography in USA "den amerikanska prärien" or "the
> > American prairie".... in MINNESOTA? :-)
>
> Seppo,
>
> I'm not sure what your smiley means here, but Minnesota (especially the
> south and west parts) has quite a bit of prairie.
Not where the stone was found, and that is what the article talked
about.
> One of my favorite public
> radio shows is "The Prairie Home Companion", based on the home town of its
> host, Garrison Keillor. That home town is Anoka, Minnesota, and is in east
> central Minnesota. I'd guess that about one-third of the state qualifies as
> prairie.
I can't comment on the radio production, as I don't know it. However
soaps on radio or TV tend to be fiction in any case. Further more you
over there have a different perception of "prairie" than we have over
here, and certainly different from that in Sweden. The perception is
gained from movies - wide open grasslands damn near as far as the eye
can see. It struck me as very funny, considering the perception of it
in Sweden and the actual local referred to.
> It's a big state, almost the size of England, Scotland and Wales
> combined. Plenty of room for scads of different geography and biomes.
Ohman's farm wasn't that big! A "prairie" doesn't have trees - Ohman
was cutting down trees - clearing land!
--
Seppo Renfors
tkavanagh wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >
> > tkavanagh wrote:
> > >
> > > Inger E Johansson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Translated text from the article in DN:
> > >
> > > <SNIP>
> > >
> > > Whew.
> > >
> > > What a hodge-podge of bad English grammar and syntax.
> >
> > What a pathetic comment! The translation was accurate and could be
> > understood.
>
> with a hell of a lot of work and guessing about what was actually
> written in the original.
Are you just being a pretentious prick, or are you really THAT
incompetent?
> > You know you could always have translated it yourself
> > instead of merely whining about it!
>
> I was not "whining" about the *original*, I was commenting that the
> grammar and syntax in the *translation* is terrible.
Of course you were whining, and still ARE! Like I said, if you didn't
like the translation DON'T WHINE about it, do one yourself! Instead of
whining, you should have said "Thank You Inger" - but that would
really hurt, now wouldn't it!
> > > And no new information.
> >
> > ...which would then mean that you have understood it to be genuine for
> > a long time, right!
>
> That conclusion is not supported by the evidence of the article.
I think Williams' statement that if it can be proven to have been
found entangled in the roots of the tree, he would have to accept it
as being genuine. That has already been proven, and is not "new"
information - therefor your writing indicated its acceptance as
genuine. After all you now have someone with enough wall paper, that
should impress even you, saying what many have already said long ago.
Thomas McDonald
>
>
> Thomas McDonald wrote:
<snip>
> > It's a big state, almost the size of England, Scotland and Wales
> > combined. Plenty of room for scads of different geography and biomes.
>
> Ohman's farm wasn't that big! A "prairie" doesn't have trees - Ohman
> was cutting down trees - clearing land!
>
Seppo,
Prairies don't have trees? That'd be news to people who live on
prairies. That's a bit like thinking deserts don't get rain. Same concept,
same type of mistake of fact.
However, I don't (and didn't) argue that Ohman's farm was on the
prairie. I was responding narrowly to your incredulity WRT the concept of
Minnesota having prairies. You were wrong, but it's not a big deal.
Tom McDonald
Stein R.
>
> In fairness to that shonk, Stein, the Swedish word can have the
> English meaning "scratched" as well - however the context dictates
> "carved" should be used. He understand English well enough to know
> this, but is deliberately using the "scratched" to be derogatory and
> pour scorn on the KRS.
Oh, for God's sake (or in your case: for KRS's sake) - try
not to be *too* touchy about your holy objects, eh ? Scratched
or carved - who the fuck cares which word you use to mean
"deliberately made indentations in a rock surface" ?
Scratched was not meant as being derogatory. It is a direct
translation of the word ("rissing") we use in Norwegian (and
presumably also in Swedish) for rock carvings ("hellerissing").
Grin,
Stein
Daryl Krupa
<snip>
> There are much more to come,
> you haven't even tried to notice and discuss
> the fact
> that there now are 4 minerals confirming glaciation process
> to be more than 200 years between the inner part of the carved runes
> and the runecarving which have a more recent ageing....
<snip>
> More to come.
<snip>
I sincerely hope so; you still haven't told us what minerals, who
did the mineral analysis, or what they found out, or where they're
from, or what "glaciation process" might have to with dating runes, or
anything, really.
Please do enlighten us as to the nature of this "fact".
Daryl Krupa
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Seppo Renfors wrote:
[...]
>> Stein MAY be able to read Swedish, but he is VERY much inclined to
>> misrepresent what IS said, and add personal BIAS to his FAKE
>> "interpretation" of it! What a bloody sleazy SHONK he turned out to
>> be!
> Oh well, I do apologize for speaking disrespectfully of a
>holy object (the KRS) in your personal ancestor worshipping
>religion ("My ancestors were all over the world long before
>Columbus, even in western/central Minnesota").
Speaking of sleazy, you might be amused at
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAIRC/1997/50.html>.
[...]
Brian
Daryl Krupa
> a piece of greywacke has spent 100 years in the ground...???
> Hold the presses while you learn a little of geology.. I would expect
> that the length of time that greywacke has 'lain' in the ground might
> be in the order of millions of years..
<snip>
Billions and Billions, actually ...
Daryl Krupa
<snip>
> I think you too, as well as Soren, better prepare a good cooking for your
> hat. You will need it.
"The Swedish Chef" strikes again!
http://www.muppets.com/profiles/chef.htm
Apurk Lyrad
Daryl Krupa
> tk,
> two essential new information were presented -
> the mineral mica's glaciation over time
> we knew about the mica's weathering,
> that's not the same thing even if the
> syntax was and grammar was bad.
<snip>
There is no excuse for such nonsense as
"the mineral mica's glaciation over time".
Inger E Johansson
"Stein R." <st...@nospam.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3EE18F...@nospam.com...
Stein,
I wasn't the touchy one but now I am most certainly am.
Norwegian is and has always been my second language since childhood. You
can't use the word "rissing" for the word 'ristades' even if I know that
many Noröne does that today. I knew it before I checked in the Norwegian
'storenorskeleksikon' on net.
http://www.storenorskeleksikon.no/default.asp
That norse word can't be used for carvings on stone if the carving is
intended as a verbal message.
Inger E
>
> Grin,
> Stein
Daryl Krupa
> Jonathan,
> are you really lining up for those who have to find a good recipe how to
> cook a hat????? :-)
<snip>
How about Chocolate Moose instead of a hat?
http://www.messygourmet.com/creations.html
Apurk Lyrad
Seppo Renfors
"Stein R." wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >
> > "Stein R." wrote:
> > >
> > > Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 04:31:00 GMT, "Inger E Johansson"
> > > > <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Those who believe that KRS is a fake and can read Swedish might be better of
> > > > >reading this article from one of Sweden's most respectable paper 'Dagens
> > > > >Nyheter'
> > > > >
> > > > >http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=597&a=147406&previousRenderType=2
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is there an english translation of the full article?
> > > >
> > > > Eric Stevens
> > >
> > > Here is a summary of the main points in the article :
> > >
> > > "Fake runestone *might* be real"
> >
> > Well, the above IS a misrepresentation. Properly translated with
> > correct emphasis as in the text is:
> >
> > "Fake" runestone can be genuine.
>
> I was *summarizing*, not translating word by word. Emphasis
> was added by me.
>
> The original headline said " 'fake' runestone might be/could
> be genuine".
My translation is accurate. YOU have proven yourself to be a SHONK - a
shyster and far less than honest in your treatment of the text.
[..]
>
> I think that you will find that "Fake runestone *might* be
> real/genuine" is a fair representation.
>
NO! It is DISHONEST, altering emphasis from the actual one displayed,
to one more suited to your personal BIAS - there is a good common term
for that kind of action - it is called "forgery".
[..]
>
> > > This fall the Kensington runestone will be exhibited at
> > > the Historical museum in Stockholm, and the controversy
> > > continues. The fight is still, as it was a 100 years ago,
> > > between established archaelogists, historians and linguists
> > > on one side (who believe it is a fake) and enthusiastic,
> > > energic amateur researchers on the other side.
> > >
> > > Then they refer to theories by two Americans, Scott Wolter
> > > and Richard Nielsen" and continue: *If* their claims can
> > > pass a closer review, it will be a sensation.
> >
> > There is an added emphasis NOT present in the text - that adds
> > Stein's personal bias to it.
> >
> > "OM NIELSENS OCH WOLTERS slutsatser håller för närmare granskning är
> > de närmast sensationella."
> >
> > "If Nielsen's and Wolter's conclusions hold up on closer inspection it
> > is nearest sensational"
>
> Again - I was summarizing, not translating.
No, you were MISREPRESENTING what the article says. Summarising
something requires accuracy with the sentiments of the actual text.
Your is BOGUS!
[..]
Oh come on! Are you wanting me to believe you are so damned
incompetent that you cannot recognised the pertinent point of the
article?
>
> (paraphrased)
>
[..]
That was blatant LIES and is miles from "paraphrased". You have shot
your credibility to hell!
That IS what he says. Then again it isn't exactly the "normal"
situation either.
>
> It also seems to me that you and I agree in interpreting
> "language monuments" as runestones.
In context, that is all it can be.
> Furthermore it seems like we agree about Williams saying
> that he [Williams] has difficulty believing that people
> from the nordic countries would have created something that
> different.
.... but he is doing merely a direct comparison, not allowing for
situational differences. It is no more than that.
>
> Or as I summarized the point:
> --> Williams still thinks that this "runestone" is too
> --> different from other runestones to be credible.
THAT is a pure fabrication. There is noting you can find to come to
that conclusion. In fact he does mention that IF it indeed was found
embedded in the roots of the tree, and in the ground for a few hundred
years, HE will have to accept it is genuine.
The point here is that this is something Williams has NOT himself
investigated, but it has been done by others already. The evidence
exists that the stone was there before ANY white people settled in the
area. The evidence has not been able to be refuted either. Therefor
you can immediately go to Willams' acceptance of the stone as genuine.
>
> Apart from your emotional/religious reaction to me
> writing "runestone" in quotation marks instead of
> genuflecting before saying it's holy name (KRS, that
> is), what is your specific objection to my summary ?
That it is a FABRICATION, intentionally misrepresented to put a
meaning on it, it does NOT have. It is demonstrated immediately by
your altering of emphasis, to MIGHT, when the word "fake" was in
inverted commas meaning "so called fake" to give it the full meaning.
Further the word "might", is not correct. It should be "can" as
"kan"="can" and retains the contextual meaning as well!
>
>
> > > Archaelogisk Birgitta Wallace, who worked on the ex-
> > > cavations at L'anse aux Meadowes and have studied the
> > > Kensignton runestone for years, says in comment to
> > > Wolter's claims that she still has seen nothing to make
> > > her change her opinion that the runestone is an 1800s
> > > fake. "Which doesn't make it uninteresting - it is an
> > > interesting example of the creativity of scandinavian
> > > settlers, rather than a milestone in American archaeo-
> > > logy".
> >
> > What a FRAUD this Stein has turned out to be! Birgitta
> > Wallace does NOT mention Wolter at all!
>
> You are indeed correct. I rechecked the original article.
> I did not have basis for summarizing her position as if
> she was *specifically* refuted Scott Wolters claims.
You had NO basis for suggesting most of what you did in that
paragraph. It is a complete misrepresentation! Further more you had
totally omitted Wolters FINDINGS, not "claims". He has established the
age by other means, required by Williams to accept it as genuine.
[snip remainder of SPIN)
>
> Is it important in any other way than as an emotional issue
> for runeheads ?
What is of absolute fundamental importance when you set yourself up as
"expert" and do a translation that it is deadly accurate. You are NOT
allowed you own bias, interpretation or SPIN. You are putting yourself
up as someone to be trusted - well that's all gone to hell now. Nobody
will trust YOUR "interpretations" anymore, as have proven to NOT be
honest!
This below is what she said:
>
> > "- Det innebär inte att den är ointressant. Den är ett monument över
> > skandinaviska invandrares kreativitet, ett bra exempel på tidig
> > nordisk-amerikansk folkkultur snarare än en milstolpe i amerikansk
> > arkeologi,"
> >
> > "It doesn't mean it (KRS) is uninteresting. It is a monument over
> > Scandinavian immigrants creativity, a good example of early
> > Nordic-American folk culture rather than a milestone in American
> > archaeology,"
> >
> > But then Birgitta Wallace has been totally discredited already,
> > as far as her utterances goes regarding the KRS!
>
> Ah, an infidel has commented on the holy stone. Burn her ! Burn
> her !
>
> <gigle>
The above shows that it really will not matter what the reality is.
You will NOT accept it - you are a "believer", where you will not
allow facts or truth to stand in the way of your "beliefs". It is
demonstrated by your blatant misrepresentations of the content of the
article!
> > > The article did not say anything much new in any direction:
> > > Enthustiastic amateurs still think it is real. The jury is
> > > still out on some of the claims by Scott Wolter, but established
> > > Swedish experts in the field are still sceptical and inclined
> > > to think it is a fake.
> >
> > This is plain editorialising by Stein and not part of the article.
> > In fact Prof Henrik Williams supports exactly what I have been
> > saying for a long time now. It it can be shown by evidence that
> > the stone was indeed found in-situe as stated by Oham, then it
> > must be genuine. There is no possibility of denting the evidence
> > of it having been found where it was actually found. AND that it
> > had to have been there for longer than white man had been in the
> > area.
>
> I believe the relevant part of the last paragraph is "if it can
> be shown by evidence".
SEE!! You can't even read properly due to your BLINKERS! That claimed
"quote" does not exist in that paragraph!
[snip off topic material]
>
> > > Grin,
> > > Stein, who can read Swedish as good as Inger, but in addition
> > > is able to not let over-enthusiasm color my perception of what
> > > I have read.
> >
> > Stein MAY be able to read Swedish, but he is VERY much inclined to
> > misrepresent what IS said, and add personal BIAS to his FAKE
> > "interpretation" of it! What a bloody sleazy SHONK he turned out to
> > be!
[snip a lot of dribble]
> The problem with mixing religion and science is that science
> cannot be limited to stay within the boundaries of religious
> dogma.
YOU are the one with the religious dogma - and accusing others of it,
is typical of "religious" people! Such know the "truth" because they
"believe" - nothing else matters!
Daryl Krupa
<snip>
> kind of area, flat and open, mostly rural - ie about what a
> visiting Scandinavian knowing that he was in the midwest
> might describe as prairie.
>
> Technically, you still have not made it onto the prairie
> proper until you cross the Red River of the north and head
> into the more or less treeless grassy "nothing to break the
> visual monotony anywhere in your field of vision for hours"
> of northern Dakota.
>
> But again, as I said - it depends on how prissy you want
> to be. Calling the area prairie describes it well enough
> for a Swedish audience to give the impression "flat and
> open, not too densely populated, a bit rural".
Heck, if you want _really_ flat prairie, you have to go to
Saskatchewan, as seen by a couple of Danes:
http://home.t-online.de/home/wolfgang-benner/images/Prairie.jpg
Apurk Lyrad
(though the Red River valley is plenty flat enough for me)
Daryl Krupa
> Eric,
>
> I will try to forward one translation made by a museum. It will have to
> be later today. Because I am at work for the moment.
>
> Inger E
And when you're done that, you might want to try this recipe:
http://home.t-online.de/home/wolfgang-benner/images/Prairie.jpg
Ann Elk (Mrs.)
Seppo Renfors
Ahhhhh.... another one! :-)
If there is SLEAZE to be looked at, look not further than at Brian!
Poor bastard come unstuck -again, so had to jump on Zolota's bandwagon
of perceived malice! Yes, This is Zolota's intended malice. Remember
my words. I predicted this would happen, that every piece of pond scum
would jump on Zolota's band wagon!!
Good one Brian, you are reminding Zolota of his evil deeds! Keep it
up, shove it up Zolota's nose as much as you can! HE deserves to
remember what he started. Remember you are not targeting ME, you are
targeting ZEALOT! He remembers my words!!
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Seppo Renfors wrote:
>>
>> In fairness to that shonk, Stein, the Swedish word can have the
>> English meaning "scratched" as well - however the context dictates
>> "carved" should be used. He understand English well enough to know
>> this, but is deliberately using the "scratched" to be derogatory and
>> pour scorn on the KRS.
>
> Oh, for God's sake (or in your case: for KRS's sake) - try
>not to be *too* touchy about your holy objects, eh ? Scratched
>or carved - who the fuck cares which word you use to mean
>"deliberately made indentations in a rock surface" ?
It makes considerable difference in English, but I'm sure you know
that already.
>
> Scratched was not meant as being derogatory. It is a direct
>translation of the word ("rissing") we use in Norwegian (and
>presumably also in Swedish) for rock carvings ("hellerissing").
So - what word is used to mean the same as a (mere) scratch in
English?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Not in spanish oak then.
Eric Stevens
Soren Larsen
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1fd3ev43k2flogslb...@4ax.com...
In Danish
Riste, to carve something would result in a 'ristning'
Ridse, to sratch something would result in a 'ridse'
But the words are close and I would not dare to
to separate them in other nordic languages or dialects.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Steve Marcus
>
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 06:17:06 +0200, "Stein R." <st...@nospam.com>
> wrote:> >> news:3EDFE084...@indiana.edu...
> >> > Inger E Johansson wrote:
> >> > >
<major snip>
> >
> > But as in the first bullet above, she places no importance
> >on the comments from Williams that "I absolutely do *not*
> >think that american amateur linguist Dick Nielsen has solved
> >all the linguistic and runological problems with the stone",
> >and "I have difficulty believing that people from the Nordic
> >countries so suddenly would create something that so signifi-
> >cantly diverges from all other preserved scratched monuments
> >from that period".
>
> Just as you have glossed over Williams saying of Nielsen:
>
> "In that sense Dick has forwarded the research. I don't believe
> him to have solved all the linuistic and runic problems on the
> stone. He hasn't been able to prove that it is an authentic
> runestone, but in more than one case he has shown that words
> and expressions on the stone actually did occur in Medieval
> documents. That hasn't been acknowledge by scholars before".
>
> Now that's an advance. That's news, but Stein prefres not to talk
> about it.
Bullcrap, Little Eva. It is not "an advance" and it's not
"news." A couple of "KRS cycles" ago, this information from Dr.
Williams was posted and thoroughly discussed in sci.archaeology:
from Dr. Williams:
"About the point that Richard Nielsen has 'uncovered a number of
correspondences between the Kensington runestone and medieval
manuscript writing': This is nothing strange, there must needs be
such correspondances between any text and the manuscript writings
of a previous stage of the same language. **Richard Nielsen has
pointed out a number of interesting features in the manuscripts
which have not been sufficiently treated before, and which merit
further study.** These 'correspondences' yet neither
conclusively prove nor disprove the medieval origin of the
inscription. **Whether Richard Nielsen has 'shown that the forms
of the [Kensington runestone] are not impossible for the 14th
century' also remains to be seen.** Some features claimed to be
'impossible' have conclusively been proven possible (if sometimes
exceedingly rare and possible due to scribal errors), others seem
'impossible' to reconcile with medieval linguistic practices."
(Emphasis supplied.)
Dr. Williams' complete comments (via posting on ONN) can be read
at:
http://lists.mun.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0209d&L=onn&F=&S=&P=172
just as they were able to be read at that URL when his position
was last discussed in sci.arch.
<snip some more.>
> > and
> >
> > b) two established experts, one linguist, one archaeologist,
> > both say that they are sceptical about the authenticity of
> > the KRS.
>
> I hope you are not referring to Birgitta Wallace as an expert. Barry
> J. Hanson has shown that when closely examined not one of Wallaces
> criticisms will stand close examination. To a great extent she relies
> on the opinions of 'experts' of the past who have never properly
> studied the KRS. All of their opinions have been discredited for one
> reason or another.
A quick comment on Wallace. While she has been repeatedly
denigrated in sci.archaeology as biased on the KRS issue, Dr.
Wallace is in fact open-minded on the question of pre-Columbian
Norse contact with North America. She is, in fact, one of the
leading exponents of the hypothesis that LAM is _not_ the Vinland
of the sagas, and that Vinland was in fact located well to the
south of LAM.
But the no-nothings, such as yourself, simply cannot stand a
professional scientist approaching the KRS (or any issue that
your crackpottery fancies) in a professionally proper manner.
Which manner includes the reliance "on the opinions of 'experts'"
with respect to fields in which one is not oneself an expert.
That those "experts" in linguistics/runology might turn out to be
wrong in a given instance does not render an archaeologist who
relies on their expertise with respect to linguistics and
runology (subject matter out of his/her field) less of an expert
in her field (archaeology).
> >
> > The linguist, who presumably know little or nothing about
> > geology, says that (paraphrased) "*if* proper scientific
> > geological testing proves that the scratched inscription
> > on the stone was done before 1800, then obviously one has
> > to accept that the text was not carved after 1800, even
> > though he thinks it weird that the text is so linguisti-
> > cally different from anything else known to be from the
> > 1300s".
>
> Oh sure. The linguist knows nothing about geology. Does it matter that
> the geologist knows nothing about linguistics?
> >
> > The comment of linguist Williams here displays something
> >one would wish to see on the account of runeheads once in
> >a while : a quality known as "intellectual integrity" or
> >"intellectual honesty".
>
> But would you recognise it if it bit you on the ankle?
> >
> > Instead, what one sees from runeheads is the wholesale
> >acceptance of fanciful new hypothesises as a better ex-
> >planation for the observed data points then the existing
> >theory, even before these new hypothesises have not been
> >through a proper scientific review process.
>
> Existing theory. Pray what existing theory? Do tell.
<snip>
> >
> > Amateurs look for stuff that will "prove" that their
> >theory is "right".
> >
> > Professionals look for stuff that will prove that their
> >theory is wrong and must be abandoned.
> >
> > It is rather easy to see what approach is the best.
>
> Sure. But which one is presently being applied to the KRS?
LOL. See above. And note that this thread began with the
infamous Inger taking a newspaper article that presents
absolutely no new information, and twisting what it says so as to
represent that it thorooughly supports her (and your) crackpot
view of the KRS situation, and the stage in the process of the
scientific evaluation of the KRS that has presently been reached,
when in fact the article merely reports both sides of the matter
and presents _nothing_ substantively new.
>
> Eric Stevens
Lurking mode to be resumed in a little while.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
Seppo Renfors
My sincerest apology for seriously over estimating your English
capabilities.
Seppo Renfors
Thomas McDonald wrote:
>
> "Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.ollis.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3EE17B24...@not.ollis.net.au...
> >
> >
> > Thomas McDonald wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > It's a big state, almost the size of England, Scotland and Wales
> > > combined. Plenty of room for scads of different geography and biomes.
> >
> > Ohman's farm wasn't that big! A "prairie" doesn't have trees - Ohman
> > was cutting down trees - clearing land!
> >
>
> Seppo,
>
> Prairies don't have trees? That'd be news to people who live on
> prairies. That's a bit like thinking deserts don't get rain. Same concept,
> same type of mistake of fact.
Perceptions Tom, that's what I refer to, perceptions. The perceptions
people have "over there" is as I said, and has been confirmed by
Stein. Oh, not to forget Daryl who posted this:
http://home.t-online.de/home/wolfgang-benner/images/Prairie.jpg
BTW, we have country like that too, only we don't call it "prairie".
Probably the best know of that kind of country is the Hay Plains. A
road with 110 km straight, then you come to a very slight bend...
>
> However, I don't (and didn't) argue that Ohman's farm was on the
> prairie. I was responding narrowly to your incredulity WRT the concept of
> Minnesota having prairies. You were wrong, but it's not a big deal.
Steve Marcus
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 04:31:00 GMT, "Inger E Johansson"
> > > > <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Those who believe that KRS is a fake and can read Swedish might be better of
> > > > >reading this article from one of Sweden's most respectable paper 'Dagens
> > > > >Nyheter'
> > > > >
> > > > >http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=597&a=147406&previousRenderType=2
> > > > >
> > > >
<snip>
> > Another important passage not mentioned:
> >
> > "- I den meningen har Dick fört forskningen framåt. Jag
> > tycker absolut inte att han löst alla språkliga och
> > runologiska problem med stenen. Han har inte kunnat visa
> > att den är en äkta runsten, men i ett antal fall har han
> > visat att ord och uttryck på stenen faktiskt kan förekomma
> > i medeltida skrifter. Det har man inte tidigare erkänt
> > från vetenskapligt håll."
> >
> > "In that was Dick has advanced the research. I don't believe he has
> > solved all linguistic and runology problems on the stone. He has not
> > been able to show it is a genuine runestone, but in many cases he has
> > shown that words and expressions on the stone factually can be found
> > in medieval scripts. [Something] That has not been acknowledged
> > earlier from the academic side."
>
> Okay, now I see your point. That part might be the important
> part for you and other runeheads, and that is probably what
> Inger described as important news:
>
> (paraphrased)
> "Finally we have gotten someone outside our little group of
> evangelizing amateur enthusiasts/nutcases to say in public
> that one of the many things that formerly was used as an sure
> indicator for 'obviously a hoax' has been proved to be weaker
> than previously thought - the linguistic arguments *against*
> the KRS has now been downgraded from 'obviously a hoax' to
> 'extremely unlikely to be genuine'".
>
> Hooray and all that, old chap. I can certainly understand
> that your lot would think that this was the main point of
> the article, and important news, as it sort of upgrades your
> own status from "obvious frauds" to merely "overly enthusiastic
> idiots".
Stein, don't worry for even a moment about the "runeheads" (great
description) on sci.archaeology, or their comments regarding your
contribution to this thread. You see, Dr. Williams position on
this matter is hardly new or news; it was discussed in
sci.archaeology a couple of "KRS cycles" ago. Here is a link to
something Dr. Williams wrote in September 2002:
http://lists.mun.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0209d&L=onn&F=&S=&P=172
and as you can see, his position re the linguistics differs
little from that described in the newspaper article. Inger loses
no opportunity to distort and misrepresent (charitably, perhaps
she merely misunderstands) what she reads; Stevens can't seem to
remember what was discussed (at length, as is the usual custom on
sci.archaeology) a few months ago, and Seppo simply loves to hear
himself rant and to play word games with respect to what people
write.
<snip>
> -> "I have difficulty believing people from the North,
> -> suddenly should create something that departs [so
> -> radically, unless I misunderstand 'så gravt'] from
> -> all other talk/language monuments (runestones pre-
> -> sumably) we have from that time.
>
> It certainly seems to me like professor Williams is
> actually saying that the KRS is significantly different
> from "all other language monuments we have from that
> time".
>
> It also seems to me that you and I agree in interpreting
> "language monuments" as runestones.
>
> Furthermore it seems like we agree about Williams saying
> that he [Williams] has difficulty believing that people
> from the nordic countries would have created something that
> different.
>
> Or as I summarized the point:
> --> Williams still thinks that this "runestone" is too
> --> different from other runestones to be credible.
>
> Apart from your emotional/religious reaction to me
> writing "runestone" in quotation marks instead of
> genuflecting before saying it's holy name (KRS, that
> is), what is your specific objection to my summary ?
>
The "runeheads" refuse to understand that the differences between
the "language monuments" created by the Norse and the KRS are
cause doubt the authenticity of the KRS. These differences do
not prove the KRS to be a fake, but they certainly give reason to
doubt its authenticity. That's a simple example of the
scientific method, something that is anathema to the likes of
Inger and Stevens. They absolutely and actively refuse to
understand this concept.
>
> > > Archaelogisk Birgitta Wallace, who worked on the ex-
> > > cavations at L'anse aux Meadowes and have studied the
> > > Kensignton runestone for years, says in comment to
> > > Wolter's claims that she still has seen nothing to make
> > > her change her opinion that the runestone is an 1800s
> > > fake. "Which doesn't make it uninteresting - it is an
> > > interesting example of the creativity of scandinavian
> > > settlers, rather than a milestone in American archaeo-
> > > logy".
> >
> > What a FRAUD this Stein has turned out to be! Birgitta
> > Wallace does NOT mention Wolter at all!
>
> You are indeed correct. I rechecked the original article.
> I did not have basis for summarizing her position as if
> she was *specifically* refuted Scott Wolters claims.
>
> The original article first explained Scott Wolters arguments,
> and then, in the next paragraph, said what I wrote above, with
> the exception of the words "to Wolter's claims".
>
> She said that she "*still* had seen nothing to make her change
> her rock firm conviction that the runestone is an 1800s fake",
> to do a fresh direct translation of the relevant sentence.
>
> But it is not said specifically that the journalist had first
> explained to her Scott Wolter's claims and asked her to comment
> on them, or that her "still" includes "after being told of Scott
> Wolter's claims".
>
> That was conjecture on my part, based on my assumption
> that any journalist that was any good at his job at all
> surely would have asked her what she thought of Scott
> Wolter's claims, and that "still" thus would implicitly
> be a comment on Scott Wolter's claims as well.
>
> I could be wrong, the journalist could have been inept,
> and her comments could have been based on not having heard
> of Scott Wolters at all, for all I know.
>
> Is it important in any other way than as an emotional issue
> for runeheads ?
>
> > "- Det innebär inte att den är ointressant. Den är ett monument över
> > skandinaviska invandrares kreativitet, ett bra exempel på tidig
> > nordisk-amerikansk folkkultur snarare än en milstolpe i amerikansk
> > arkeologi,"
> >
> > "It doesn't mean it (KRS) is uninteresting. It is a monument over
> > Scandinavian immigrants creativity, a good example of early
> > Nordic-American folk culture rather than a milestone in American
> > archaeology,"
> >
> > But then Birgitta Wallace has been totally discredited already,
> > as far as her utterances goes regarding the KRS!
>
> Ah, an infidel has commented on the holy stone. Burn her ! Burn
> her !
>
> <gigle>
>
Oh absolutely, Stein. Wallace is a favorite "whipping girl" for
the "runeheads." Her expertise is archaeology and Norse
culture, and with respect to her field, she has ample reason to
doubt the authenticity of the KRS. She, perforce, has had to
rely upon experts in the field of linguistics for information on
that topic; to the extent that certain positions re the
linguistics of the KRS have changed, such reliance is claimed to
demonstrate that she "is biased" against the KRS. In fact, she
has no such bias, she merely has called it as she sees it. Her
lack of "bias" is shown by the fact, that she takes the position
that LAM is not Vinland, but that Vinland lies well to the south
of LAM, a position espoused by many a runehead.
> > > The article did not say anything much new in any direction:
> > > Enthustiastic amateurs still think it is real. The jury is
> > > still out on some of the claims by Scott Wolter, but established
> > > Swedish experts in the field are still sceptical and inclined
> > > to think it is a fake.
> >
> > This is plain editorialising by Stein and not part of the article.
> > In fact Prof Henrik Williams supports exactly what I have been
> > saying for a long time now. It it can be shown by evidence that
> > the stone was indeed found in-situe as stated by Oham, then it
> > must be genuine. There is no possibility of denting the evidence
> > of it having been found where it was actually found. AND that it
> > had to have been there for longer than white man had been in the
> > area.
>
> I believe the relevant part of the last paragraph is "if it can
> be shown by evidence".
>
> I am afraid that I wouldn't believe any more in any "evidence"
> brought forward by your lot than I believed in the "evidence"
> George Bush presented to support the need to go to war with Iraq.
>
> This far, no credible, rock solid evidence of large stocks of
> Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has been found. Neither has
> similar credible evidence for the veracity of the KRS been brought
> forward.
>
> In the absence of reproducible tests and unrefutable evidence,
> it boils down to the question of whom you want to believe:
>
> In one case:
> enthusiastic evangelizing amateurs or
> a sceptical professional third party, with no particular axe to grind,
>
> In the other case:
> people who wanted "a short victorious war" for political reasons or
> the UN weapons inspectors, which again had no particular axe to grind.
>
> I know who I'd put my money on, in the absence of conclusive
> hard evidence either way.
>
> > > Grin,
> > > Stein, who can read Swedish as good as Inger, but in addition
> > > is able to not let over-enthusiasm color my perception of what
> > > I have read.
> >
> > Stein MAY be able to read Swedish, but he is VERY much inclined to
> > misrepresent what IS said, and add personal BIAS to his FAKE
> > "interpretation" of it! What a bloody sleazy SHONK he turned out to
> > be!
>
> Oh well, I do apologize for speaking disrespectfully of a
> holy object (the KRS) in your personal ancestor worshipping
> religion ("My ancestors were all over the world long before
> Columbus, even in western/central Minnesota").
>
> If you want to worship the KRS as a holy object, by all means
> do. Ancestor worshipping is in principle no better and no worse
> than most other religions, and in principle the attempts to prove
> that the KRS is genuine no worse than claiming something along
> the lines of "Scientic Examinations of the Shroud of Turin Will,
> Real Soon Now, Prove Conclusively That Jesus Really Lived and
> Performed Every Miracle Attributed to Him in the Bible" or some
> such thing.
>
> The problem with mixing religion and science is that science
> cannot be limited to stay within the boundaries of religious
> dogma.
>
> Grin,
> Stein
No, no, Stein. Seppo isn't in GWB's league. Nor is it a matter
of Seppo worshipping the KRS as a holy object. See this, for the
manner in which Seppo has, in the past, treated "evidence" and
the manner which, in the past, Seppo has "argued":
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAIRC/1997/50.html
That should give you a little heads-up with respect to whom you
are dealing with, something that you will find of value now that
Seppo has reached the "name calling stage" of the argument.
Lurking mode to be reengaged, soon.
Inger E Johansson
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:1fd3ev43k2flogslb...@4ax.com...
scratch in Swedish is 'klösa', 'riva' ....
example a cat can be said to 'klösa'/'riva'
scratch the surface = skrapa på ytan(på on is omitted in the English texts,
ytan = the surface
skrapa = scrape or scratch
skrapa sig på benet= graze one's leg.....
Inger E
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Inger E Johansson
sorry if the message didn't get thru. There was only two parts in Dr
Nielsen's words that were new - 'vi var" was one of them. The essential
parts were in SW's presentation and in Henrik William's 'if - so' clausul.
Those parts were totally new - the mineralization of mica not only the
weathering process discussed before but the ageing of the mineral mica; the
comparishion between KRS and 100 - 200 year old grave stones with same
carving deep in same stonetypes were SW's new information.
Inger E
Inger E
"Steve Marcus" <barbm...@erols.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3EE21037...@erols.com...
Inger E Johansson
while BW by many is regarded to be an archaeolog specialist and a scholar
it's on the other hand haven't been possible to find one single academic
essay or dissertation written by her, neither under her maiden name, nor her
first husband's name nor her present name. I have had two of Sweden's
University's library searching for any academic publication written by her
all they have been able to find is small lines inside other's work.
Appart from that I haven't found any verification for her taking a degree in
Medieval History nor in Norse or Scandinavian culture.
Inger E
Those
Inger E
"Steve Marcus" <barbm...@erols.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3EE216DB...@erols.com...
Inger E Johansson
you are sending disinformation - stop that idiotic childish behaviour of
yours.
Prof Henrik Williams said in the article the "if - so" sentense - which you
are very well aware of haven't been said in this group before.
Keep to the topic not your interpretation of the article - but the actual
words in the article.
Inger E
"Steve Marcus" <barbm...@erols.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3EE21037...@erols.com...
Steve Marcus
>
> Steve,
> while BW by many is regarded to be an archaeolog specialist and a scholar
> it's on the other hand haven't been possible to find one single academic
> essay or dissertation written by her, neither under her maiden name, nor her
> first husband's name nor her present name. I have had two of Sweden's
> University's library searching for any academic publication written by her
> all they have been able to find is small lines inside other's work.
>
> Appart from that I haven't found any verification for her taking a degree in
> Medieval History nor in Norse or Scandinavian culture.
>
> Inger E
Inger,
The fact that you (or any of your anonymous Swedish Universitys)
haven't found any essays or dissertations written by Dr. Wallace
does not mean anything.
Dr. Wallace is currently employed by Parks Canada, and is a bona
fide Ph.D, something that you are not and will never be. She is
a published author, who has been published in peer reviewed
literature, something that you are not and will never be. She is
a recognized authority in her field, and a scientist, both some
other things that you will never be. She has probably forgotten
more about Norse culture and about archaeology than you ever
knew, or will know. I am confident that were she to read a
newspaper article that discusses the fact that an artifact is
coming to Sweden for study, and then goes on to state the
arguments made for and against the artifact's authenticity, that
she would have been able to report on that article accurately,
which is something that you did not do (and are probably
incapable of doing).
Steve
<major snip>
Lurking mode to be re-engage soon.
Steve Marcus
>
> Steve,
> sorry if the message didn't get thru. There was only two parts in Dr
> Nielsen's words that were new - 'vi var" was one of them. The essential
> parts were in SW's presentation and in Henrik William's 'if - so' clausul.
> Those parts were totally new - the mineralization of mica not only the
> weathering process discussed before but the ageing of the mineral mica; the
> comparishion between KRS and 100 - 200 year old grave stones with same
> carving deep in same stonetypes were SW's new information.
Inger, I'm sorry that you either do not read what others post, or
cannot do so for comprehension. This is a quote from the linked
ONN letter written by Dr. Williams (actually, Dr. Williams is
quoting what he himself had previously said at a conference) in
2002:
"Thus I will be delighted if the inscription turns out to be
recent, it would still remain one of the greatest legacies of
Scandinavians in the Mid-West. I will be equally delighted if its
proves to be as old as it claims. So what if it complicates
matters? Problems to solve are what make philology so much fun!"
Williams, being a scientist, has always stood ready to accept the
KRS as an authentic 14th century artifact provided that it is
supported by sufficient credible evidence. What you report is
simply not new.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.
<major snipping>
Inger E Johansson
once again I am sorry having to tell you that you simply can't read. There
is an Ocean width between the quotation you refer to and the concrete
statements of Prof Williams in the DN-article.
I am not sure if you at your university have to study validation of texts
content, here in Sweden all who study History, Language, Sociology, Cultural
Geography and many other subjects have to. On the other end, those were not
your subjects if I remember it correctly.
Inger E
"Steve Marcus" <barbm...@erols.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3EE25389...@erols.com...
Inger E Johansson
a procurator and archaeologist in Canada haven't found anything either.
Your lines below show that you don't know about the way that every single
edited book including dissertation and academic essays are registred. Since
she haven't written anything like it in Sweden, that's established, and
there is no academic work noted for her in Canada where she lived since she
moved from Sweden without finishing her studies, then the question would be
Why hasn't any academic work of her been registred. There is no ISBN number
registred to for example a dissertation of hers.
Inger E
"Steve Marcus" <barbm...@erols.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3EE2521E...@erols.com...
Inger E Johansson
You can't read Swedish, that's obvious. You don't understand the difference
between two statements.
OK your education up to now must have lacked studies in valuations of text.
The Ocean width is obvious for every single Swede.
Inger E
"Steve Marcus" <barbm...@erols.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3EE25389...@erols.com...