Hooked 'X' Runes and where they have been found.
Eric Stevens
Ancient Waterways Group. The trailer for the TV documentary is worth
seeing.
Begin quote
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_waterways_society/message/857
I'm finally allowed to discuss something I've become somewhat involved
in with a company called Committee Films. They're working on a
documentary about an unusual symbol called the Hooked X. This symbol
is showing up in several places on this continent and in Europe
consistent with a pre-Columbus discovery story of North America. The
man who discovered the symbol and is researching it's possible
significance is Scott Wolter.
Scott is a geologist by trade and an amateur researcher (Diffusionist)
who was a speaker at the Atlantic Conference in August. In fact, you
can see him in the sample film on the website -
http://www.AtlanticConference.org
Susan and Terry saw this presentation.
Scott did groundbreaking work on verifying the Kensington Runestone
and has a book out on this.
http://www.kensingtonrunestone.com
At the conference, he made a presentation on an unusual symbol on the
Kensington Runestone (see the Photos link at left to see this symbol).
He's calling it the Hooked X.
Because of his upcoming book and movie, I could not include this
presentation in the DVD set, but I will this spring or summer. The
news, however, is this -
The trailer for the upcoming film on the Hooked X, being produced and
directed by Committee Films, has won top prize at the National
Association of TV Production Executives. As a result, the movie and
Andy Awes, the producer/director are generating a great deal of
interest from -
The Discovery Channel
The History Channel
PBS
National Geographic
Parade Magazine
etc. etc.
Please see the trailer at this link -
http://www.committeefilms.com/qts/aa/shona_aa.html
It's now looking like the movie will be picked up by one of these TV
channels, production will be complete and the movie will air. Scott is
also publishing a book on the Hooked X.
For the Sinclair family, this is significant -
The Hooked X was found on the Kensington Runestone.
It was found on the Spirit Pond Runestone (the Mapstone).
It was found on the Narragansett, Rhode Island inscription stone
It has been found, with Niven's help, on an ancient Astrolabe held at
Oxford University dated c. 1350-1400 AD.
It has been found on the sigla of Christopher Columbus.
And (drum roll please) it was found in Rosslyn Chapel.
Both Scott and David Brody
http://tinylink.com/?K6IbUQCvBP
have said, Jarl Henry St. Clair is really the only candidate at this
time.
The Kensington Runestone inscription translated -
"8 Goths and 22 Norweigans on exploration journey from Vinland over
the west. We camp by 2 skerries one day-journey from this stone. We
were and fished one day. After we came home, 10 men red with blood and
tourtured. AVM, save from evil. Have 10 men by the sea to look after
our ship, 14 day -journeys from this island year 1362."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
End quote
Eric Stevens
Doug Weller
wrote:
>
>The Hooked X was found on the Kensington Runestone.
>It was found on the Spirit Pond Runestone (the Mapstone).
>It was found on the Narragansett, Rhode Island inscription stone
>It has been found, with Niven's help, on an ancient Astrolabe held at
>Oxford University dated c. 1350-1400 AD.
>It has been found on the sigla of Christopher Columbus.
>And (drum roll please) it was found in Rosslyn Chapel.
Which is enough to make me a bit dubious that it is actually the same
thing each time (in meaning, that is).
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/
Eric Stevens
<dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:54:23 +1300, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens
>wrote:
>
>>
>>The Hooked X was found on the Kensington Runestone.
>>It was found on the Spirit Pond Runestone (the Mapstone).
>>It was found on the Narragansett, Rhode Island inscription stone
>>It has been found, with Niven's help, on an ancient Astrolabe held at
>>Oxford University dated c. 1350-1400 AD.
>>It has been found on the sigla of Christopher Columbus.
>>And (drum roll please) it was found in Rosslyn Chapel.
>
>Which is enough to make me a bit dubious that it is actually the same
>thing each time (in meaning, that is).
>
The letter 'A' has been found on the American Declarartion of
Independence.
It is found in Mrs Beeton's Cookery Book.
It is found in the name of one of the Internet's largest search
engines.
It is found on the dial of my watch.
It is found on a document at the South Pole.
I'm not at all dubious that it is actually the same thing each time
(in meaning, that is).
The difference between the letter 'A' and the hooked 'X' is that we
know what meaning is attributed to the 'A' but are still guessing as
to the exact significance of the hooked 'X' (although there are one or
two intriguing suggestions).
Eric Stevens
zayton
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:t8leo4tl12hr2i0qu...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:51:53 +0000, Doug Weller
> <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:54:23 +1300, in sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The Hooked X was found on the Kensington Runestone.
>>>It was found on the Spirit Pond Runestone (the Mapstone).
>>>It was found on the Narragansett, Rhode Island inscription stone
>>>It has been found, with Niven's help, on an ancient Astrolabe held at
>>>Oxford University dated c. 1350-1400 AD.
>>>It has been found on the sigla of Christopher Columbus.
>>>And (drum roll please) it was found in Rosslyn Chapel.
>>
>>Which is enough to make me a bit dubious that it is actually the same
>>thing each time (in meaning, that is).
>>
>
> The letter 'A' has been found on the American Declarartion of
> Independence.
> It is found in Mrs Beeton's Cookery Book.
> It is found in the name of one of the Internet's largest search
> engines.
> It is found on the dial of my watch.
> It is found on a document at the South Pole.
>
> I'm not at all dubious that it is actually the same thing each time
> (in meaning, that is).
It is also found in the architecture of my front porch.
Does it have the same meaning there?
I have followed a hiking trail marked with the same sign.
(though sometimes the point was to the right or left rather than straight
up).
Did it have the same meaning there?
(perhaps only when the point was straight up?)
Your illustrations would be useful if there were any point in proving that
not every occurance of the same shape has a different meaning; but that is
hardly in question, is it?
Doug Weller
wrote:
If you aren't dubious, it's because (I hope) you see a clear common
context, eg they are all part of English texts.
What is the common context of the Hooked X's?
Eric Stevens
<dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
At this stage, I don't really know. You have to realise that the
'hooked X' was first identified on on one of the Spirit Pond rune
stones and used to help establish it as a fake (now where have I heard
of that before?). Some years later the 'hooked X' was identified by
Scott Wolter in the course of closely photographing the Kensington
rune stone.
Scott Wolter then set off in a search for other examples of the
'hooked X' and found it in at least one example of the signature of
Christopher Columbus! I don't know when it was identified on the
Narragansett inscription stone, or the astrolab or Rosslyn chapel.
This seems to me to be sufficient to establish the 'hooked X' as a
real character but on the basis of the little that I know it gives no
clue as to its meaning. We don't even know if any of the various
examples are using it for something than its original purpose.
Eric Stevens
David B.
>>>> [quote]
>>>>> The Hooked X was found on the Kensington Runestone.
>>>>> It was found on the Spirit Pond Runestone (the Mapstone).
>>>>> It was found on the Narragansett, Rhode Island inscription stone
>>>>> It has been found, with Niven's help, on an ancient Astrolabe held at
>>>>> Oxford University dated c. 1350-1400 AD.
>>>>> It has been found on the sigla of Christopher Columbus.
>>>>> And (drum roll please) it was found in Rosslyn Chapel.
One very notable example is missing from the list above- the second
Larsson runerow, which consistently uses the hooked X for the variants
of "A".
>
> Scott Wolter then set off in a search for other examples of the
> 'hooked X' and found it in at least one example of the signature of
> Christopher Columbus! I don't know when it was identified on the
> Narragansett inscription stone, or the astrolab or Rosslyn chapel.
The Columbus signature can be seen here:
http://www.humanities-interactive.org/newworld/fact_fict/768/ex036_04b.jpg
Note that Columbus also writes a hooked Y, suggesting that the hook is
just a little flourish for ending up-diagonal pen-strokes. Also the sign
here stands for "Ch", not for "A" as it does on the Kensington stone.
The Narragansett stone- tiny photo available here:
http://dsbrody.wordpress.com/
-has both the "hooked X" (theoretically meaning "A" as it's in a runic
context), and, right next to it, the downsloped F rune which signified
"A" in the traditional futhark.
So far I haven't tracked down the Rosslyn example, but it's an easy
shape to carve as a mason's mark. As for the astrolabe, I'm not aware of
any such instruments at Oxford with runes on them, so this may be
another "Ch".
>
> This seems to me to be sufficient to establish the 'hooked X' as a
> real character but on the basis of the little that I know it gives no
> clue as to its meaning. We don't even know if any of the various
> examples are using it for something than its original purpose.
Unless it can be proved that the Spirit Pond and Narragansett examples
were known before the Kensington stone was unearthed, one cannot rule
out the possibility that they were carved by people who had seen
pictures of the Kensington text (I strongly dispute the claim that
Wolter discovered the hooked X runes on the KRS- they show up very
clearly in all photos of the stone).
David B
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>> [quote]
>>>>>> The Hooked X was found on the Kensington Runestone.
>>>>>> It was found on the Spirit Pond Runestone (the Mapstone).
>>>>>> It was found on the Narragansett, Rhode Island inscription stone
>>>>>> It has been found, with Niven's help, on an ancient Astrolabe held at
>>>>>> Oxford University dated c. 1350-1400 AD.
>>>>>> It has been found on the sigla of Christopher Columbus.
>>>>>> And (drum roll please) it was found in Rosslyn Chapel.
>
>One very notable example is missing from the list above- the second
>Larsson runerow, which consistently uses the hooked X for the variants
>of "A".
This isn't surprising, if the Larsson runes trace their roots to some
earlier heritage.
>
>>
>> Scott Wolter then set off in a search for other examples of the
>> 'hooked X' and found it in at least one example of the signature of
>> Christopher Columbus! I don't know when it was identified on the
>> Narragansett inscription stone, or the astrolab or Rosslyn chapel.
>
>The Columbus signature can be seen here:
>http://www.humanities-interactive.org/newworld/fact_fict/768/ex036_04b.jpg
>Note that Columbus also writes a hooked Y, suggesting that the hook is
>just a little flourish for ending up-diagonal pen-strokes. Also the sign
>here stands for "Ch", not for "A" as it does on the Kensington stone.
>
>The Narragansett stone- tiny photo available here:
>http://dsbrody.wordpress.com/
>-has both the "hooked X" (theoretically meaning "A" as it's in a runic
>context), and, right next to it, the downsloped F rune which signified
>"A" in the traditional futhark.
A better image can be found at http://westfordknight.blogspot.com/
>
>So far I haven't tracked down the Rosslyn example, but it's an easy
>shape to carve as a mason's mark. As for the astrolabe, I'm not aware of
>any such instruments at Oxford with runes on them, so this may be
>another "Ch".
Perhaps it is? This may be a case where one has to apply a 'pesher'
reading technique. :-)
>
>>
>> This seems to me to be sufficient to establish the 'hooked X' as a
>> real character but on the basis of the little that I know it gives no
>> clue as to its meaning. We don't even know if any of the various
>> examples are using it for something than its original purpose.
>
>Unless it can be proved that the Spirit Pond and Narragansett examples
>were known before the Kensington stone was unearthed, one cannot rule
>out the possibility that they were carved by people who had seen
>pictures of the Kensington text.
In fact this was an accusation that was levelled at them when they
were first found and used as evidence that they were fakes. Even if
the Spirit Pond and Narranganset stones were inscribed prior to the
KRS is still leaves open the claim that the KRS was copied from them.
In fact this argument remains no matter what date order you ascribe to
the various inscriptions. But is there any reason (other than custom)
to accuse any of these of being fakes?
> (I strongly dispute the claim that
>Wolter discovered the hooked X runes on the KRS- they show up very
>clearly in all photos of the stone).
>
I should expand on this. To quote from Robert A. Hall writing in
1994:-
"A very much disputed rune, regarded by many, ever since Flom's
discussion in 1910, as prima facie evidence of modern forgery. A
simple X-shape, either vertical or "lazy" (i.e. on its side), was
used from the Middle Ages (widely attested in the Bergen finds)
down to modern times, as in Dalecarlia. The main sticking point
has been the dot inside the inside the upper right branch, which
until the 1980's was attested in exactly this shape only in this
inscription and in others discovered in North America (Spirit Pond,
Narranganset). Most recently, similar shapes with a dot or a small
branch thus: [figure omitted] have been attested in Scandinavia
(cf. Nielsen [1987:10-13, with tables 3-5; Forthcoming-b1-12, with
six illustrations), so that this form of the 'a' rune can no longer
be dismissed as a North American forgery. Sound-value /a/."
From the earliest days the hooked-X on the KRS has been regarded as a
dotted-X. Those long in the tooth will remember the wars which raged
in this news group over the 'dotted-X'. Until very recent times it has
never been suggested that the Xs were anything other than dotted. It
was not until Scott Wolters macrophotography that it could be clearly
seen that the Xs were not dotted but had a deliberately cut short bar.
Note that even Richard Nielsen's discovery of the hooked-X in
scandinavia was not sufficient to enable the identification of such
runes on the KRS.
Eric Stevens
David B.
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:47:22 +0000, "David B."
> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>> [quote]
>>>>>>> The Hooked X was found on the Kensington Runestone.
>>>>>>> It was found on the Spirit Pond Runestone (the Mapstone).
>>>>>>> It was found on the Narragansett, Rhode Island inscription stone
>>>>>>> It has been found, with Niven's help, on an ancient Astrolabe held at
>>>>>>> Oxford University dated c. 1350-1400 AD.
>>>>>>> It has been found on the sigla of Christopher Columbus.
>>>>>>> And (drum roll please) it was found in Rosslyn Chapel.
>> One very notable example is missing from the list above- the second
>> Larsson runerow, which consistently uses the hooked X for the variants
>> of "A".
>
> This isn't surprising, if the Larsson runes trace their roots to some
> earlier heritage.
Well, the clear root of that particular rune is the Dalecarlian X=A rune
(usually without a hook) as noted in your quotation below.
>> The Narragansett stone-
>
> http://westfordknight.blogspot.com/
Thanks, that's much better!
>> So far I haven't tracked down the Rosslyn example, but it's an easy
>> shape to carve as a mason's mark. As for the astrolabe, I'm not aware of
>> any such instruments at Oxford with runes on them, so this may be
>> another "Ch".
>
> Perhaps it is? This may be a case where one has to apply a 'pesher'
> reading technique. :-)
Or we may simply be seeing different cases of a desire to distinguish
the letter "X" in the standard west-European alphabet from letters which
look like "X" in other alphabets.
>> Unless it can be proved that the Spirit Pond and Narragansett examples
>> were known before the Kensington stone was unearthed, one cannot rule
>> out the possibility that they were carved by people who had seen
>> pictures of the Kensington text.
>
> In fact this was an accusation that was levelled at them when they
> were first found and used as evidence that they were fakes. Even if
> the Spirit Pond and Narranganset stones were inscribed prior to the
> KRS is still leaves open the claim that the KRS was copied from them.
Yes, or at least inspired by them.
> In fact this argument remains no matter what date order you ascribe to
> the various inscriptions. But is there any reason (other than custom)
> to accuse any of these of being fakes?
If the Kensington stone really is a fake, then the similarities found in
the others make them pretty much definite fakes as well. The
geographical situation, the language and the use of runic alphabets
known from 19th century documents tend to suggest (though by no means to
prove) that the Kensington stone really is a fake.
> To quote from Robert A. Hall writing in
> 1994:-
>
> "A very much disputed rune, regarded by many, ever since Flom's
> discussion in 1910, as prima facie evidence of modern forgery. A
> simple X-shape, either vertical or "lazy" (i.e. on its side), was
> used from the Middle Ages (widely attested in the Bergen finds)
> down to modern times, as in Dalecarlia. The main sticking point
> has been the dot inside the inside the upper right branch, which
> until the 1980's was attested in exactly this shape only in this
> inscription and in others discovered in North America (Spirit Pond,
> Narranganset). Most recently, similar shapes with a dot or a small
> branch thus: [figure omitted] have been attested in Scandinavia
> (cf. Nielsen [1987:10-13, with tables 3-5; Forthcoming-b1-12, with
> six illustrations), so that this form of the 'a' rune can no longer
> be dismissed as a North American forgery. Sound-value /a/."
>
> From the earliest days the hooked-X on the KRS has been regarded as a
> dotted-X. Those long in the tooth will remember the wars which raged
> in this news group over the 'dotted-X'. Until very recent times it has
> never been suggested that the Xs were anything other than dotted.
Nonsense. The publshed version of Flom's "The Kensington Rune Stone: An
Address" (1910) depicts it as a hooked X, as does the Minneapolis Star
reproduction of what seems to be the original transcript of the
inscription sent to Sven Turnblad in 1899 (at
http://www.sjolander.com/viking/rune/kcopy.htm ). And as I suggested
yesterday, the "hook" bars are very clearly visible as such on old
photos such as those reproduced by Hu McCulloch.
David B.
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
That last sentence really is an exagerated load of
cobblers ... :-)
As has been pointed out many times a number of the runes simply were
not known to the 'experts' either at the time the KRS was found or in
the succeeding 80 or 90 years. Not even the belated discovery of the
Larsson runes completely fills the gap. You cannot say that the the
KRS used "runic alphabets known from 19th century documents".
Scattered precedents have recently been found in Scandinavia but it
has taken much searching.
It doesn't matter how it was depicted. What does matter is what it was
thought to be. In the link you have given just above enlarging the
screen enables it to be seen that X has been drawn as dotted. Until
recently it has always been referred to as a 'dotted-X'. As far as I
know, the first time that it clearly shown to be a bar and not just
another dot was when Scott Wolter photographed and wrote about it. As
far as I know, the detailed photographs of the runes used by Hu
McCulloch came from Scott Wolter.
Eric Stevens
David B.
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 13:18:47 +0000, "David B."
> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> If the Kensington stone really is a fake, then the similarities found in
>> the others make them pretty much definite fakes as well. The
>> geographical situation, the language and the use of runic alphabets
>> known from 19th century documents tend to suggest (though by no means to
>> prove) that the Kensington stone really is a fake.
>
> That last sentence really is an exagerated load of
> cobblers ... :-)
> As has been pointed out many times a number of the runes simply were
> not known to the 'experts' either at the time the KRS was found or in
> the succeeding 80 or 90 years. Not even the belated discovery of the
> Larsson runes completely fills the gap. You cannot say that the
> Scattered precedents have recently been found in Scandinavia but it
> has taken much searching.
And that last point is the key to the issue. If "scattered precedents"
suddenly appear together in the 19th century, there is a strong
likelihood that somebody with an academic interest in the subject and a
sense of mischief has gathered them together deliberately.
>> as I suggested
>> yesterday, the "hook" bars are very clearly visible as such on old
>> photos such as those reproduced by Hu McCulloch.
>
> It doesn't matter how it was depicted. What does matter is what it was
> thought to be. In the link you have given just above enlarging the
> screen enables it to be seen that X has been drawn as dotted. Until
> recently it has always been referred to as a 'dotted-X'. As far as I
> know, the first time that it clearly shown to be a bar and not just
> another dot was when Scott Wolter photographed and wrote about it. As
> far as I know, the detailed photographs of the runes used by Hu
> McCulloch came from Scott Wolter.
You're wrong about the Sjolander site illustration (or at least most
examples of the rune therein)- make sure your software doesn't smooth
pixels in enlarged images. Hu names the Runestone Museum as the source
for his photos, and notes "I think these were taken circa 1930"; as he
put them online very shortly after Wolter's first investigation, you'd
think the Museum would have given appropriate credit. As for the "dotted
X" in general, I think what has happened is the same as in some other
long-running controversies- recent (i.e. post-WWII) researchers have
ignored early work on the topic, which did not describe the rune as
"dotted X" or "hooked X" but simply and correctly treated it as a rune,
nothing to do with the standard alphabet, and showed it (with "hook")
rather than attempting to describe it.
David B.
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 13:18:47 +0000, "David B."
>> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>
>>> If the Kensington stone really is a fake, then the similarities found in
>>> the others make them pretty much definite fakes as well. The
>>> geographical situation, the language and the use of runic alphabets
>>> known from 19th century documents tend to suggest (though by no means to
>>> prove) that the Kensington stone really is a fake.
>>
>> That last sentence really is an exagerated load of
>> cobblers ... :-)
>> As has been pointed out many times a number of the runes simply were
>> not known to the 'experts' either at the time the KRS was found or in
>> the succeeding 80 or 90 years. Not even the belated discovery of the
>> Larsson runes completely fills the gap. You cannot say that the
>> KRS used "runic alphabets known from 19th century documents".
>> Scattered precedents have recently been found in Scandinavia but it
>> has taken much searching.
>
>And that last point is the key to the issue. If "scattered precedents"
>suddenly appear together in the 19th century, there is a strong
>likelihood that somebody with an academic interest in the subject and a
>sense of mischief has gathered them together deliberately.
Aah - but they only appeared late in the 20th century when Nielsen and
others went looking for them.
>
>>> as I suggested
>>> yesterday, the "hook" bars are very clearly visible as such on old
>>> photos such as those reproduced by Hu McCulloch.
>>
>> It doesn't matter how it was depicted. What does matter is what it was
>> thought to be. In the link you have given just above enlarging the
>> screen enables it to be seen that X has been drawn as dotted. Until
>> recently it has always been referred to as a 'dotted-X'. As far as I
>> know, the first time that it clearly shown to be a bar and not just
>> another dot was when Scott Wolter photographed and wrote about it. As
>> far as I know, the detailed photographs of the runes used by Hu
>> McCulloch came from Scott Wolter.
>
>You're wrong about the Sjolander site illustration (or at least most
>examples of the rune therein)- make sure your software doesn't smooth
>pixels in enlarged images. Hu names the Runestone Museum as the source
>for his photos, and notes "I think these were taken circa 1930"; as he
>put them online very shortly after Wolter's first investigation, you'd
>think the Museum would have given appropriate credit. As for the "dotted
>X" in general, I think what has happened is the same as in some other
>long-running controversies- recent (i.e. post-WWII) researchers have
>ignored early work on the topic, which did not describe the rune as
>"dotted X" or "hooked X" but simply and correctly treated it as a rune,
>nothing to do with the standard alphabet, and showed it (with "hook")
>rather than attempting to describe it.
>
>David B.
Eric Stevens
David B.
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:03:44 +0000, "David B."
> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> If "scattered precedents"
>> suddenly appear together in the 19th century, there is a strong
>> likelihood that somebody with an academic interest in the subject and a
>> sense of mischief has gathered them together deliberately.
>
> Aah - but they only appeared late in the 20th century when Nielsen and
> others went looking for them.
No- they appeared _together_ in the 19th century, on the KRS and
(mostly) the Larsson notes.
David B.
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:03:44 +0000, "David B."
>> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>
>>> If "scattered precedents"
>>> suddenly appear together in the 19th century, there is a strong
>>> likelihood that somebody with an academic interest in the subject and a
>>> sense of mischief has gathered them together deliberately.
>>
>> Aah - but they only appeared late in the 20th century when Nielsen and
>> others went looking for them.
>
>No- they appeared _together_ in the 19th century, on the KRS and
>(mostly) the Larsson notes.
>
How on earth can you quote the KRS as a precedent for the runes on the
KRS?
As far as the Larsson runes are concerned, they serve as only a
partial precedent for runes on the KRS and there is no evidence that
the Larsson runes were generally known before 2004. Even then, as you
say, the Larsson runes did not provide a complete precedent for the
runes of the KRS.
You say "there is a strong likelihood that somebody with an academic
interest in the subject and a sense of mischief has gathered them
together deliberately." I will agree that there is a possibility that
this happened but such a hypothesis cannot be supported without
evidence. I bet you have none.
The circumstances of the finding of the KRS is attested as is the
approximate age of the tree. If these are accepted, one is left with
the task of identifying a person or persons who created the KRS in
about 1855 and then waited for its later accidental discovery.
Even if you reject the evidence as to the finding and the age of the
tree it will still be necessary to identify the person or persons who
might have created the KRS as a joke in 1895.
A number of people have tried create such a hypothesis but no one has
been able to identify a scholar with a sufficiently advanced knowledge
to create such a forgery. As has many times been pointed out not even
the 'experts' of the period and later would have been able to do so.
The best explanation so far is that the runes were carved by someone
from 14th century Bohuslan.
Eric Stevens
David B.
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:55:01 +0000, "David B."
> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:03:44 +0000, "David B."
>>> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If "scattered precedents"
>>>> suddenly appear together in the 19th century, there is a strong
>>>> likelihood that somebody with an academic interest in the subject and a
>>>> sense of mischief has gathered them together deliberately.
>>> Aah - but they only appeared late in the 20th century when Nielsen and
>>> others went looking for them.
>> No- they appeared _together_ in the 19th century, on the KRS and
>> (mostly) the Larsson notes.
>>
> How on earth can you quote the KRS as a precedent for the runes on the
> KRS?
By writing sloppy sentences! What I meant, of course, was that the same
rare runes, found in "scattered" sources, serve as precedents for both
the KRS and the Larsson runerows.
> As far as the Larsson runes are concerned, they serve as only a
> partial precedent for runes on the KRS
How many KRS runes can you point out which differ from runes in one of
the two Larsson rows in any way more significant than mirror reversal?
> and there is no evidence that
> the Larsson runes were generally known before 2004.
Irrelevant. The Larsson papers make it clear that the runes were being
taught; the lack of other documentary references to the same runerows
strongly suggests that they were supposed to be committed to memory
(which would neatly explain the minor differences on the KRS) and kept
secret.
> You say "there is a strong likelihood that somebody with an academic
> interest in the subject and a sense of mischief has gathered them
> together deliberately." I will agree that there is a possibility that
> this happened but such a hypothesis cannot be supported without
> evidence. I bet you have none.
Except that in a case such as this, as suggested above, absence of
evidence may well be evidence of conspiracy, and such evidence as the
Larsson papers do offer makes it clear that they were connected with
some quasi-Masonic organisation ("tablets of the law").
> The circumstances of the finding of the KRS is attested as is the
> approximate age of the tree. If these are accepted, one is left with
> the task of identifying a person or persons who created the KRS in
> about 1855 and then waited for its later accidental discovery.
Or as I suggested on my web page years ago, who "primed" the KRS for
revelation at a time of their choosing by not allocating the plot in
which it was buried.
> Even if you reject the evidence as to the finding and the age of the
> tree it will still be necessary to identify the person or persons who
> might have created the KRS as a joke in 1895.
It's not necessary to identify the murderer to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that somebody has been murdered.
> A number of people have tried create such a hypothesis but no one has
> been able to identify a scholar with a sufficiently advanced knowledge
> to create such a forgery. As has many times been pointed out not even
> the 'experts' of the period and later would have been able to do so.
>
> The best explanation so far is that the runes were carved by someone
> from 14th century Bohuslan.
Why? The runes were secretly known in Sweden in the late 19th century,
and are rarely found in early sources; curiously enough, the word forms
and grammar also have more in common with 19th century rural Swedish
than with most medieval texts. I suspect that the "expertise" of the KRS
author is an illusion.
David B.
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:55:01 +0000, "David B."
>> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:03:44 +0000, "David B."
>>>> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If "scattered precedents"
>>>>> suddenly appear together in the 19th century, there is a strong
>>>>> likelihood that somebody with an academic interest in the subject and a
>>>>> sense of mischief has gathered them together deliberately.
>>>> Aah - but they only appeared late in the 20th century when Nielsen and
>>>> others went looking for them.
>>> No- they appeared _together_ in the 19th century, on the KRS and
>>> (mostly) the Larsson notes.
>>>
>> How on earth can you quote the KRS as a precedent for the runes on the
>> KRS?
>
>By writing sloppy sentences! What I meant, of course, was that the same
>rare runes, found in "scattered" sources, serve as precedents for both
>the KRS and the Larsson runerows.
But only if they were all known to the carver of the KRS.
>
>> As far as the Larsson runes are concerned, they serve as only a
>> partial precedent for runes on the KRS
>
>How many KRS runes can you point out which differ from runes in one of
>the two Larsson rows in any way more significant than mirror reversal?
According Nielsen,Wolter [The Kensington Rune Stone, p84] 13 Larsson
runes are not used on the KRS. These are the runes for c, e, g, n, o,
p, q, r, x, y, z, å and ö. On the same page they say nine KRS forms
are not seen on the Larsson rune row. These are for e, g, l,
[crossed-L], n, r, R, s and t. So, even if runes were copied from the
same rune row as that used by Larsson, the Larsson rune row cannot
fully explain the KRS.
There are other runes in the KRS which are similar but not identical
to the Larsson runes but I have no way of dealing with these with the
limited fonts available to me.
>
>> and there is no evidence that
>> the Larsson runes were generally known before 2004.
>
>Irrelevant. The Larsson papers make it clear that the runes were being
>taught; the lack of other documentary references to the same runerows
>strongly suggests that they were supposed to be committed to memory
>(which would neatly explain the minor differences on the KRS) and kept
>secret.
Of course they were meant to be committed to memory. So too is the
alphabet.
>
>> You say "there is a strong likelihood that somebody with an academic
>> interest in the subject and a sense of mischief has gathered them
>> together deliberately." I will agree that there is a possibility that
>> this happened but such a hypothesis cannot be supported without
>> evidence. I bet you have none.
>
>Except that in a case such as this, as suggested above, absence of
>evidence may well be evidence of conspiracy, and such evidence as the
>Larsson papers do offer makes it clear that they were connected with
>some quasi-Masonic organisation ("tablets of the law").
Hoo-boy!
"I have no evidence. That proves there was a conspiracy to conceal
it".
>
>> The circumstances of the finding of the KRS is attested as is the
>> approximate age of the tree. If these are accepted, one is left with
>> the task of identifying a person or persons who created the KRS in
>> about 1855 and then waited for its later accidental discovery.
>
>Or as I suggested on my web page years ago, who "primed" the KRS for
>revelation at a time of their choosing by not allocating the plot in
>which it was buried.
You are proposing the carver was the person who found the KRS. Are you
really accusing Ohman of having done all this?
>
>> Even if you reject the evidence as to the finding and the age of the
>> tree it will still be necessary to identify the person or persons who
>> might have created the KRS as a joke in 1895.
>
>It's not necessary to identify the murderer to prove beyond reasonable
>doubt that somebody has been murdered.
So you are saying that its not necessary to identify the forger to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the KRS is forged. What evidence do
you have that the KRS is forged?
>
>> A number of people have tried create such a hypothesis but no one has
>> been able to identify a scholar with a sufficiently advanced knowledge
>> to create such a forgery. As has many times been pointed out not even
>> the 'experts' of the period and later would have been able to do so.
>>
>> The best explanation so far is that the runes were carved by someone
>> from 14th century Bohuslan.
>
>Why? The runes were secretly known in Sweden in the late 19th century,
>and are rarely found in early sources; curiously enough, the word forms
>and grammar also have more in common with 19th century rural Swedish
>than with most medieval texts. I suspect that the "expertise" of the KRS
>author is an illusion.
I was wrong. Not Bohuslan but Gottland.
The evidence is that some of the runes were known in Sweden in the
late 19th century. However some of the runes of the KRS were quite
clearly not copied from the Larsson runerow but do have an independent
medieval precedent. Conversely if the runes of the KRS were those of
the Larsson rune row the inscription on the KRS would have been
different from the one actually present.
Are you qualified to say that "the word forms and grammar also have
more in common with 19th century rural Swedish than with most medieval
texts"? If not, who are you paraphrasing?
Eric Stevens
David B.
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:32:00 +0000, "David B."
> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> the same
>> rare runes, found in "scattered" sources, serve as precedents for both
>> the KRS and the Larsson runerows.
>
> But only if they were all known to the carver of the KRS.
No- if they were known to the person who devised the "secret" runes
which form the basis of both the Larsson runerows and the KRS.
>> How many KRS runes can you point out which differ from runes in one of
>> the two Larsson rows in any way more significant than mirror reversal?
>
> According Nielsen,Wolter [The Kensington Rune Stone, p84] 13 Larsson
> runes are not used on the KRS. These are the runes for c, e, g, n, o,
> p, q, r, x, y, z, å and ö. On the same page they say nine KRS forms
> are not seen on the Larsson rune row. These are for e, g, l,
> [crossed-L], n, r, R, s and t. So, even if runes were copied from the
> same rune row as that used by Larsson, the Larsson rune row cannot
> fully explain the KRS.
That's a serious misconception. The lack of some Larsson runes (from
complete runerows) on the KRS (a short narrative) is virtually
inevitable. Comparing the Larsson runes with Nielsen's transcript of the
KRS, I find that every KRS rune closely resembles its like-sounding
equivalent in one or both of the Larsson rows (even to the extent of
using the traditional "th" rune for "d"), except as follows:
g: mirror version of Larsson row 1 rune / undotted version of row 2 rune
o: mirror version of row 1 rune
v: as row 2, but with dot instead of hook
umlaut-u: as row 2, but with horizontal stroke across vertical shaft
umlaut-o: as row 2, but with horizontal stroke across vertical shaft
>> The Larsson papers make it clear that the runes were being
>> taught; the lack of other documentary references to the same runerows
>> strongly suggests that they were supposed to be committed to memory
>> (which would neatly explain the minor differences on the KRS) and kept
>> secret.
>
> Of course they were meant to be committed to memory. So too is the
> alphabet.
Yes, but it's easy to look up the alphabet in reference books, or get a
children's book with one letter per page. It seems that learners of the
Larsson runes were supposed to destroy their notes once they had
memorised them.
>> Except that in a case such as this, as suggested above, absence of
>> evidence may well be evidence of conspiracy, and such evidence as the
>> Larsson papers do offer makes it clear that they were connected with
>> some quasi-Masonic organisation ("tablets of the law").
>
> Hoo-boy!
>
> "I have no evidence. That proves there was a conspiracy to conceal
> it".
No.
"I have a very small amount of positive evidence- the Larsson
runerows and the KRS, both accepted to have existed by the late 19th
century, and found thousands of miles apart. The Larsson papers imply
that these runes were being actively taught, but no other copies of the
two runerows are known, which suggests that they were intended to be
kept secret. Both the Larsson papers and the KRS, in addition to the
unusual runic scripts contain plain text which suggests a link to the
Freemasons ("tablets of the law" and "AVM")."
>> "primed" the KRS for
>> revelation at a time of their choosing by not allocating the plot in
>> which it was buried.
>
> You are proposing the carver was the person who found the KRS. Are you
> really accusing Ohman of having done all this?
No, absolutely not. I am proposing that the KRS was created by, or with
the connivance of, somebody who had authority to allocate land plots in
Solem township, and would be able to keep the burial site reserved until
such time as it was deemed advantageous for a settler to grub up the
trees and find the stone. If the stone really was created around the
1850s, then it is likely that its creators were dead, and their
intention forgotten, by the time the plot was finally allocated.
>> It's not necessary to identify the murderer to prove beyond reasonable
>> doubt that somebody has been murdered.
>
> So you are saying that its not necessary to identify the forger to
> prove beyond reasonable doubt that the KRS is forged. What evidence do
> you have that the KRS is forged?
Not enough to prove it beyond reasonable doubt- apart from anything
else, I'd advise a close study of town administrative records of the
period for both Solem and Holmes City.
> Are you qualified to say that "the word forms and grammar also have
> more in common with 19th century rural Swedish than with most medieval
> texts"? If not, who are you paraphrasing?
I am partially qualified to say that, as I studied language history
(though not specifically Swedish) at university. The statement is
therefore my interpretation of the evidence presented by numerous
Scandinavian scholars, from Breda to Williams. The development of modern
Swedish had only just begun in 1362, yet the KRS displays a wide variety
of linguistic developments which occurred only in isolation during the
medieval period. However, the KRS does display some forms which were
archaic by the 19th century, and would have survived only in areas with
little exposure to modern literature.
David B.
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:32:00 +0000, "David B."
>> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>
>>> the same
>>> rare runes, found in "scattered" sources, serve as precedents for both
>>> the KRS and the Larsson runerows.
>>
>> But only if they were all known to the carver of the KRS.
>
>No- if they were known to the person who devised the "secret" runes
>which form the basis of both the Larsson runerows and the KRS.
So now you are requiring two layers of special knowledge. The first is
the person who, unlike the experts, knew enough about the rare runes
found in scattered sources to enable them to be incorporated in the
Larsson rune row. The second is another person who, unlike the
experts, knew of the Larsson rune row and incorporated some of them in
the KRS. Even if you ignore the fact that some of the rare runes were
not found until the late 20th century, Occam's razor would have a
great time with your slowly emerging hypothesis.
>
>>> How many KRS runes can you point out which differ from runes in one of
>>> the two Larsson rows in any way more significant than mirror reversal?
>>
>> According Nielsen,Wolter [The Kensington Rune Stone, p84] 13 Larsson
>> runes are not used on the KRS. These are the runes for c, e, g, n, o,
>> p, q, r, x, y, z, å and ö. On the same page they say nine KRS forms
>> are not seen on the Larsson rune row. These are for e, g, l,
>> [crossed-L], n, r, R, s and t. So, even if runes were copied from the
>> same rune row as that used by Larsson, the Larsson rune row cannot
>> fully explain the KRS.
>
>That's a serious misconception. The lack of some Larsson runes (from
>complete runerows) on the KRS (a short narrative) is virtually
>inevitable.
Why. Are you no longer trying to argue that the KRS used the same rune
row as the Larsson runes?
>Comparing the Larsson runes with Nielsen's transcript of the
>KRS, I find that every KRS rune closely resembles its like-sounding
>equivalent in one or both of the Larsson rows (even to the extent of
>using the traditional "th" rune for "d"), except as follows:
>g: mirror version of Larsson row 1 rune / undotted version of row 2 rune
>o: mirror version of row 1 rune
>v: as row 2, but with dot instead of hook
>umlaut-u: as row 2, but with horizontal stroke across vertical shaft
>umlaut-o: as row 2, but with horizontal stroke across vertical shaft
What is your source for this?
>
>>> The Larsson papers make it clear that the runes were being
>>> taught; the lack of other documentary references to the same runerows
>>> strongly suggests that they were supposed to be committed to memory
>>> (which would neatly explain the minor differences on the KRS) and kept
>>> secret.
>>
>> Of course they were meant to be committed to memory. So too is the
>> alphabet.
>
>Yes, but it's easy to look up the alphabet in reference books, or get a
>children's book with one letter per page. It seems that learners of the
>Larsson runes were supposed to destroy their notes once they had
>memorised them.
Why do you say this? Is this another element of your hypothesis?
>
>>> Except that in a case such as this, as suggested above, absence of
>>> evidence may well be evidence of conspiracy, and such evidence as the
>>> Larsson papers do offer makes it clear that they were connected with
>>> some quasi-Masonic organisation ("tablets of the law").
>>
>> Hoo-boy!
>>
>> "I have no evidence. That proves there was a conspiracy to conceal
>> it".
>
>No.
>"I have a very small amount of positive evidence- the Larsson
>runerows and the KRS, both accepted to have existed by the late 19th
>century, and found thousands of miles apart. The Larsson papers imply
>that these runes were being actively taught, but no other copies of the
>two runerows are known, which suggests that they were intended to be
>kept secret.
But the Larsson rune row and the runes of the KRS are not the same. So
why are you trying to argue a connection?
>Both the Larsson papers and the KRS, in addition to the
>unusual runic scripts contain plain text which suggests a link to the
>Freemasons ("tablets of the law" and "AVM")."
Strangely enough, I agree with you there about the KRS. However, I
don't agree with the hypothesis you have constructed to explain the
connection.
>
>>> "primed" the KRS for
>>> revelation at a time of their choosing by not allocating the plot in
>>> which it was buried.
>>
>> You are proposing the carver was the person who found the KRS. Are you
>> really accusing Ohman of having done all this?
>
>No, absolutely not. I am proposing that the KRS was created by, or with
>the connivance of, somebody who had authority to allocate land plots in
>Solem township, and would be able to keep the burial site reserved until
>such time as it was deemed advantageous for a settler to grub up the
>trees and find the stone. If the stone really was created around the
>1850s, then it is likely that its creators were dead, and their
>intention forgotten, by the time the plot was finally allocated.
Details of the history of the settlement of the region were given in
this news group some years ago. Do you have the details? Is this
aspect of your hypothesis even possible?
>
>>> It's not necessary to identify the murderer to prove beyond reasonable
>>> doubt that somebody has been murdered.
>>
>> So you are saying that its not necessary to identify the forger to
>> prove beyond reasonable doubt that the KRS is forged. What evidence do
>> you have that the KRS is forged?
>
>Not enough to prove it beyond reasonable doubt- apart from anything
>else, I'd advise a close study of town administrative records of the
>period for both Solem and Holmes City.
So you don't have the details. What do you expect to find in the
respective administrative records?
>
>> Are you qualified to say that "the word forms and grammar also have
>> more in common with 19th century rural Swedish than with most medieval
>> texts"? If not, who are you paraphrasing?
>
>I am partially qualified to say that, as I studied language history
>(though not specifically Swedish) at university. The statement is
>therefore my interpretation of the evidence presented by numerous
>Scandinavian scholars, from Breda to Williams. The development of modern
>Swedish had only just begun in 1362, yet the KRS displays a wide variety
>of linguistic developments which occurred only in isolation during the
>medieval period. However, the KRS does display some forms which were
>archaic by the 19th century, and would have survived only in areas with
>little exposure to modern literature.
My recollection is that Williams described the language as 'modern'
only in the sense that it is consistent with a period later than 1362.
It didn't need to be much later and he certainly didn't mean that it
was consistent with 19th century Swedish. My present understanding is
that more recent studies have largely removed the description of
'modern'.
Eric Stevens
David B.
>> if they were known to the person who devised the "secret" runes
>> which form the basis of both the Larsson runerows and the KRS.
>
> So now you are requiring two layers of special knowledge. The first is
> the person who, unlike the experts, knew enough about the rare runes
> found in scattered sources to enable them to be incorporated in the
> Larsson rune row. The second is another person who, unlike the
> experts, knew of the Larsson rune row and incorporated some of them in
> the KRS.
Not quite. First we have the person or persons who submitted the two
runerows for the use of an unknown Masonic-style organisation, possibly
quite a long time before 1883. Second we have all the members of that
organisation, who were subsequently expected to learn the two sets of
runes, the pigpen alphabet, the pentadic numerals etc.
>> The lack of some Larsson runes (from
>> complete runerows) on the KRS (a short narrative) is virtually
>> inevitable.
>
> Why. Are you no longer trying to argue that the KRS used the same rune
> row as the Larsson runes?
Why? Because any short text other than one specifically designed to
feature all letters of the alphabet is likely to miss some out. On the
other hand, when letters of a short text do not appear in the alphabet-
that's noteworthy.
>> Comparing the Larsson runes with Nielsen's transcript of the
>> KRS, I find that every KRS rune closely resembles its like-sounding
>> equivalent in one or both of the Larsson rows (even to the extent of
>> using the traditional "th" rune for "d"), except as follows:
>> g: mirror version of Larsson row 1 rune / undotted version of row 2 rune
>> o: mirror version of row 1 rune
>> v: as row 2, but with dot instead of hook
>> umlaut-u: as row 2, but with horizontal stroke across vertical shaft
>> umlaut-o: as row 2, but with horizontal stroke across vertical shaft
>
> What is your source for this?
Comparison of the Larsson papers with Nielsen's transcript of the KRS
runes (although actually I initially made my own transcript from photos
of the stone) and generally accepted conversions of the KRS text to the
conventional alphabet.
>> It seems that learners of the
>> Larsson runes were supposed to destroy their notes once they had
>> memorised them.
>
> Why do you say this? Is this another element of your hypothesis?
It's a very likely explanation for the lack of other copies of the
Larsson runerows, given the hints about a quasi-Masonic context in the
Larsson papers.
>> "I have a very small amount of positive evidence- the Larsson
>> runerows and the KRS, both accepted to have existed by the late 19th
>> century, and found thousands of miles apart. The Larsson papers imply
>> that these runes were being actively taught, but no other copies of the
>> two runerows are known, which suggests that they were intended to be
>> kept secret.
>
> But the Larsson rune row and the runes of the KRS are not the same. So
> why are you trying to argue a connection?
As noted above, in reality the runes of the KRS are all found within the
Larsson runerows except for the minor differences I describe. So why are
people like Nielsen attempting to argue a lack of connection?
>> I am proposing that the KRS was created by, or with
>> the connivance of, somebody who had authority to allocate land plots in
>> Solem township, and would be able to keep the burial site reserved until
>> such time as it was deemed advantageous for a settler to grub up the
>> trees and find the stone. If the stone really was created around the
>> 1850s, then it is likely that its creators were dead, and their
>> intention forgotten, by the time the plot was finally allocated.
>
> Details of the history of the settlement of the region were given in
> this news group some years ago. Do you have the details? Is this
> aspect of your hypothesis even possible?
I am aware of the timeline of settlement, and details such as the
preponderance of Scandinavian settlers during the early years of Holmes
City from about 1860 onward.
>> I'd advise a close study of town administrative records of the
>> period for both Solem and Holmes City.
>
> So you don't have the details. What do you expect to find in the
> respective administrative records?
Given that the KRS was found in one of the small number of plots in
Solem township reserved as "Internal Improvement Land", it would be
interesting to try and find when, why (purportedly), and at whose
instigation this designation was made- plus, obviously, any later
records relating to the plot before it was acquired by Ohman.
>> The development of modern
>> Swedish had only just begun in 1362, yet the KRS displays a wide variety
>> of linguistic developments which occurred only in isolation during the
>> medieval period. However, the KRS does display some forms which were
>> archaic by the 19th century, and would have survived only in areas with
>> little exposure to modern literature.
>
> My recollection is that Williams described the language as 'modern'
> only in the sense that it is consistent with a period later than 1362.
> It didn't need to be much later and he certainly didn't mean that it
> was consistent with 19th century Swedish. My present understanding is
> that more recent studies have largely removed the description of
> 'modern'.
The KRS language is sufficiently "modern" to be understood without much
difficulty by 21st century Swedes, which would not be true of most 14th
century texts, littered with unfamiliar case endings etc. In the other
direction, it has belatedly occurred to me that the KRS archaisms could
be deliberate, the result of a 19th century author looking through the
dictionary for words noted specifically as obsolete.
David B.
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:54:31 +0000, "David B."
>> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>>> if they were known to the person who devised the "secret" runes
>>> which form the basis of both the Larsson runerows and the KRS.
>>
>> So now you are requiring two layers of special knowledge. The first is
>> the person who, unlike the experts, knew enough about the rare runes
>> found in scattered sources to enable them to be incorporated in the
>> Larsson rune row. The second is another person who, unlike the
>> experts, knew of the Larsson rune row and incorporated some of them in
>> the KRS.
>
>Not quite. First we have the person or persons who submitted the two
>runerows for the use of an unknown Masonic-style organisation, possibly
>quite a long time before 1883. Second we have all the members of that
>organisation, who were subsequently expected to learn the two sets of
>runes, the pigpen alphabet, the pentadic numerals etc.
... and they had to be in place to allow the KRS to be carved and
buried some time before 1855. In fact, the weathering of the stones
suggests it all occurred several centuries earlier than its finding.
>
>>> The lack of some Larsson runes (from
>>> complete runerows) on the KRS (a short narrative) is virtually
>>> inevitable.
>>
>> Why. Are you no longer trying to argue that the KRS used the same rune
>> row as the Larsson runes?
>
>Why? Because any short text other than one specifically designed to
>feature all letters of the alphabet is likely to miss some out. On the
>other hand, when letters of a short text do not appear in the alphabet-
>that's noteworthy.
I think you will find that in places the KRS uses alternatives to the
Larsson runes.
>
>>> Comparing the Larsson runes with Nielsen's transcript of the
>>> KRS, I find that every KRS rune closely resembles its like-sounding
>>> equivalent in one or both of the Larsson rows (even to the extent of
>>> using the traditional "th" rune for "d"), except as follows:
>>> g: mirror version of Larsson row 1 rune / undotted version of row 2 rune
>>> o: mirror version of row 1 rune
>>> v: as row 2, but with dot instead of hook
>>> umlaut-u: as row 2, but with horizontal stroke across vertical shaft
>>> umlaut-o: as row 2, but with horizontal stroke across vertical shaft
>>
>> What is your source for this?
>
>Comparison of the Larsson papers with Nielsen's transcript of the KRS
>runes (although actually I initially made my own transcript from photos
>of the stone) and generally accepted conversions of the KRS text to the
>conventional alphabet.
OK. All your own work. I presume you have not read Nielsen/Wolters
most recent writing on the subject.
>
>>> It seems that learners of the
>>> Larsson runes were supposed to destroy their notes once they had
>>> memorised them.
>>
>> Why do you say this? Is this another element of your hypothesis?
>
>It's a very likely explanation for the lack of other copies of the
>Larsson runerows, given the hints about a quasi-Masonic context in the
>Larsson papers.
>
>>> "I have a very small amount of positive evidence- the Larsson
>>> runerows and the KRS, both accepted to have existed by the late 19th
>>> century, and found thousands of miles apart. The Larsson papers imply
>>> that these runes were being actively taught, but no other copies of the
>>> two runerows are known, which suggests that they were intended to be
>>> kept secret.
>>
>> But the Larsson rune row and the runes of the KRS are not the same. So
>> why are you trying to argue a connection?
>
>As noted above, in reality the runes of the KRS are all found within the
>Larsson runerows except for the minor differences I describe. So why are
>people like Nielsen attempting to argue a lack of connection?
Read his writing on the subject and you will find.
>
>>> I am proposing that the KRS was created by, or with
>>> the connivance of, somebody who had authority to allocate land plots in
>>> Solem township, and would be able to keep the burial site reserved until
>>> such time as it was deemed advantageous for a settler to grub up the
>>> trees and find the stone. If the stone really was created around the
>>> 1850s, then it is likely that its creators were dead, and their
>>> intention forgotten, by the time the plot was finally allocated.
>>
>> Details of the history of the settlement of the region were given in
>> this news group some years ago. Do you have the details? Is this
>> aspect of your hypothesis even possible?
>
>I am aware of the timeline of settlement, and details such as the
>preponderance of Scandinavian settlers during the early years of Holmes
>City from about 1860 onward.
When in that time line do you think the KRS was carved?
>
>>> I'd advise a close study of town administrative records of the
>>> period for both Solem and Holmes City.
>>
>> So you don't have the details. What do you expect to find in the
>> respective administrative records?
>
>Given that the KRS was found in one of the small number of plots in
>Solem township reserved as "Internal Improvement Land", it would be
>interesting to try and find when, why (purportedly), and at whose
>instigation this designation was made- plus, obviously, any later
>records relating to the plot before it was acquired by Ohman.
Michael Zalar may already have done this.
>
>>> The development of modern
>>> Swedish had only just begun in 1362, yet the KRS displays a wide variety
>>> of linguistic developments which occurred only in isolation during the
>>> medieval period. However, the KRS does display some forms which were
>>> archaic by the 19th century, and would have survived only in areas with
>>> little exposure to modern literature.
>>
>> My recollection is that Williams described the language as 'modern'
>> only in the sense that it is consistent with a period later than 1362.
>> It didn't need to be much later and he certainly didn't mean that it
>> was consistent with 19th century Swedish. My present understanding is
>> that more recent studies have largely removed the description of
>> 'modern'.
>
>The KRS language is sufficiently "modern" to be understood without much
>difficulty by 21st century Swedes, which would not be true of most 14th
>century texts, littered with unfamiliar case endings etc. In the other
>direction, it has belatedly occurred to me that the KRS archaisms could
>be deliberate, the result of a 19th century author looking through the
>dictionary for words noted specifically as obsolete.
You seem to be prepared to weave a very complicated hypothetical
structure as an alternative to considering the KRS to be what it
purports to be. I think that part of the problem is that you are being
mislead by the apparent Masonic connections.
Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
I suspect that Nielsen's writings don't come free of charge ...
And I suspect that he would prefer his beliefs (and they are truly beliefs,
not just knowledge based upon scientific method) be accepted as accurate.
>>
>>>> I am proposing that the KRS was created by, or with
>>>> the connivance of, somebody who had authority to allocate land plots in
>>>> Solem township, and would be able to keep the burial site reserved
>>>> until
>>>> such time as it was deemed advantageous for a settler to grub up the
>>>> trees and find the stone. If the stone really was created around the
>>>> 1850s, then it is likely that its creators were dead, and their
>>>> intention forgotten, by the time the plot was finally allocated.
>>>
>>> Details of the history of the settlement of the region were given in
>>> this news group some years ago. Do you have the details? Is this
>>> aspect of your hypothesis even possible?
>>
>>I am aware of the timeline of settlement, and details such as the
>>preponderance of Scandinavian settlers during the early years of Holmes
>>City from about 1860 onward.
>
> When in that time line do you think the KRS was carved?
What does that matter?
>>
>>>> I'd advise a close study of town administrative records of the
>>>> period for both Solem and Holmes City.
>>>
>>> So you don't have the details. What do you expect to find in the
>>> respective administrative records?
>>
>>Given that the KRS was found in one of the small number of plots in
>>Solem township reserved as "Internal Improvement Land", it would be
>>interesting to try and find when, why (purportedly), and at whose
>>instigation this designation was made- plus, obviously, any later
>>records relating to the plot before it was acquired by Ohman.
>
> Michael Zalar may already have done this.
May...
>>
>>>> The development of modern
>>>> Swedish had only just begun in 1362, yet the KRS displays a wide
>>>> variety
>>>> of linguistic developments which occurred only in isolation during the
>>>> medieval period. However, the KRS does display some forms which were
>>>> archaic by the 19th century, and would have survived only in areas with
>>>> little exposure to modern literature.
>>>
>>> My recollection is that Williams described the language as 'modern'
>>> only in the sense that it is consistent with a period later than 1362.
>>> It didn't need to be much later and he certainly didn't mean that it
>>> was consistent with 19th century Swedish. My present understanding is
>>> that more recent studies have largely removed the description of
>>> 'modern'.
>>
>>The KRS language is sufficiently "modern" to be understood without much
>>difficulty by 21st century Swedes, which would not be true of most 14th
>>century texts, littered with unfamiliar case endings etc. In the other
>>direction, it has belatedly occurred to me that the KRS archaisms could
>>be deliberate, the result of a 19th century author looking through the
>>dictionary for words noted specifically as obsolete.
>
> You seem to be prepared to weave a very complicated hypothetical
> structure as an alternative to considering the KRS to be what it
> purports to be. I think that part of the problem is that you are being
> mislead by the apparent Masonic connections.
Do you argue that David's hypotheticals require more complexity than the
circumstance of this runestone just happening to have been discovered in a
section of North America with a large population of Scandinavian immigrants,
many of whom felt aggrieved that their ancestors weren't getting the credit
for "discovering America" that was conveyed on Columbus?
No runestone anywhere near locations that can be documented as having been
visited by Norse explorers from their Atlantic colonies. No runestones that
display the cultural attributes of typical authentic runestones. Just a
runestone that specifically identifies no one by name, located at a center
of Scandinavian descended immigrants.
And the fact that the Larsson runes now provide the answer as to why the
experts originally did not believe the thing to be 14th century; the runes
would not have been familiar to non-Freemason experts.
So: A runestone purporting to be a 14th century artifact, that does not fit
cultural norms for such runestones, that employs runes having few 14th
century century precedents known to "experts" in the field, but turns out to
bear runes closley resembling runes created by a "secret society" of sorts,
turns up in a population center people by Scandinavian immigrants aggrieved
by Columbus getting credit for their ancestors' discovery.
What does Occam tell you: A) It's authentic, and the resemblance of the
runes to the Larsson runes is coincidence, its discovery precisely where it
would be appreciated and where it would be in the interest of the ocal
population to believe it to be authentic is yet another happy coincidence?
Or B) It's a lately created hoax designed to "stir the pot"?
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
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. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
JerryT
snip
>
> And the fact that the Larsson runes now provide the answer as to why the
> experts originally did not believe the thing to be 14th century; the runes
> would not have been familiar to non-Freemason experts.
Exactly what does this mean?
Jerry T
snip
Eric Stevens
Jeez! You gotta buy his book or the on-line copies of his papers! I
cited the most recent publication that I know of. Are you really too
mean to either buy a copy or borrow it through your local library?
>
>And I suspect that he would prefer his beliefs (and they are truly beliefs,
>not just knowledge based upon scientific method) be accepted as accurate.
Great. You haven't read them (otherwise you wouldn't say "I suspect
that Nielsen's writings don't come free of charge ... ") yet you
describe them as 'beliefs'. You haven't changed, have you Steve?
>
>>>
>>>>> I am proposing that the KRS was created by, or with
>>>>> the connivance of, somebody who had authority to allocate land plots in
>>>>> Solem township, and would be able to keep the burial site reserved
>>>>> until
>>>>> such time as it was deemed advantageous for a settler to grub up the
>>>>> trees and find the stone. If the stone really was created around the
>>>>> 1850s, then it is likely that its creators were dead, and their
>>>>> intention forgotten, by the time the plot was finally allocated.
>>>>
>>>> Details of the history of the settlement of the region were given in
>>>> this news group some years ago. Do you have the details? Is this
>>>> aspect of your hypothesis even possible?
>>>
>>>I am aware of the timeline of settlement, and details such as the
>>>preponderance of Scandinavian settlers during the early years of Holmes
>>>City from about 1860 onward.
>>
>> When in that time line do you think the KRS was carved?
>
>What does that matter?
It has a great deal to do with who might (or might not) have been
around to carve the KRS.
>
>>>
>>>>> I'd advise a close study of town administrative records of the
>>>>> period for both Solem and Holmes City.
>>>>
>>>> So you don't have the details. What do you expect to find in the
>>>> respective administrative records?
>>>
>>>Given that the KRS was found in one of the small number of plots in
>>>Solem township reserved as "Internal Improvement Land", it would be
>>>interesting to try and find when, why (purportedly), and at whose
>>>instigation this designation was made- plus, obviously, any later
>>>records relating to the plot before it was acquired by Ohman.
>>
>> Michael Zalar may already have done this.
>
>May...
Yep. May.
There is no complexity in the scenario you describe once you omit the
irrelevancies.
>
>No runestone anywhere near locations that can be documented as having been
>visited by Norse explorers from their Atlantic colonies. No runestones that
>display the cultural attributes of typical authentic runestones. Just a
>runestone that specifically identifies no one by name, located at a center
>of Scandinavian descended immigrants.
Your are describing all the reasons why it doesn't fit your
expectations for a rune stone. Does it matter that it doesn't fit your
expectations?
>
>And the fact that the Larsson runes now provide the answer as to why the
>experts originally did not believe the thing to be 14th century; the runes
>would not have been familiar to non-Freemason experts.
It does not at all provide the reasons why the 'experts' did not
originally believe the KRS to be 14th century. The 'experts' did not
even know of the Larsson rune row.
>
>So: A runestone purporting to be a 14th century artifact, that does not fit
>cultural norms for such runestones, that employs runes having few 14th
>century century precedents known to "experts" in the field, but turns out to
>bear runes closley resembling runes created by a "secret society" of sorts,
>turns up in a population center people by Scandinavian immigrants aggrieved
>by Columbus getting credit for their ancestors' discovery.
You are wrong about the lack of 14th century precedents. You are
probably wrong about the (presumably Larsson runes) being 'created' by
a secret society.
>
>What does Occam tell you: A) It's authentic, and the resemblance of the
>runes to the Larsson runes is coincidence, its discovery precisely where it
>would be appreciated and where it would be in the interest of the ocal
>population to believe it to be authentic is yet another happy coincidence?
>Or B) It's a lately created hoax designed to "stir the pot"?
You are misusing Occam.
Eric Stevens
David B.
>> First we have the person or persons who submitted the two
>> runerows for the use of an unknown Masonic-style organisation, possibly
>> quite a long time before 1883. Second we have all the members of that
>> organisation, who were subsequently expected to learn the two sets of
>> runes, the pigpen alphabet, the pentadic numerals etc.
>
> ... and they had to be in place to allow the KRS to be carved and
> buried some time before 1855.
No. The stone would have been buried among the roots of an existing
young tree, so that when the tree was grubbed up the stone would emerge
automatically- therefore a better date would be 1898 minus 40 years
plus 5-10 years: 1863-68.
> In fact, the weathering of the stones
> suggests it all occurred several centuries earlier than its finding.
Sooner or later, somebody will have to investigate artificial weathering
of samples of stone similar to the KRS. It is almost inevitable that if
the KRS is fake, it would have been artificially weathered.
> I think you will find that in places the KRS uses alternatives to the
> Larsson runes.
Only as I noted (unless you count the dubious dots found by Wolter)- but
feel free to give examples I've missed.
>> Comparison of the Larsson papers with Nielsen's transcript of the KRS
>> runes (although actually I initially made my own transcript from photos
>> of the stone) and generally accepted conversions of the KRS text to the
>> conventional alphabet.
>
> OK. All your own work. I presume you have not read Nielsen/Wolters
> most recent writing on the subject.
No. From what little I know of it, I wouldn't trust it anyway.
>> So why are
>> people like Nielsen attempting to argue a lack of connection?
>
> Read his writing on the subject and you will find.
Yes, obviously. But you asked why I was trying to argue a connection
between the Larsson runes and the KRS runes- and I would argue that the
connection is obvious, subject to the very slight differences I listed.
It therefore seems to me that Nielsen is straining to emphasise
differences, when in reality it is very likely indeed that Larsson and
the KRS compiler were both taught the same two runerows and pentadic
numerals.
>> I am aware of the timeline of settlement, and details such as the
>> preponderance of Scandinavian settlers during the early years of Holmes
>> City from about 1860 onward.
>
> When in that time line do you think the KRS was carved?
Probably around 1866, when settlement was about to begin in Solem township.
>> Given that the KRS was found in one of the small number of plots in
>> Solem township reserved as "Internal Improvement Land", it would be
>> interesting to try and find when, why (purportedly), and at whose
>> instigation this designation was made- plus, obviously, any later
>> records relating to the plot before it was acquired by Ohman.
>
> Michael Zalar may already have done this.
Possibly, though he hasn't published it- and as a pro-authenticity
researcher he would have nothing to gain from such research, because if
the stone is genuine, the history of the land after 1362 is irrelevant.
> You seem to be prepared to weave a very complicated hypothetical
> structure as an alternative to considering the KRS to be what it
> purports to be. I think that part of the problem is that you are being
> mislead by the apparent Masonic connections.
I don't think my theory is any more complicated than necessary to
explain all the evidence (including the Larsson connection- which takes
rather more explaining than the pro-authenticity side would prefer to
admit- and the tree roots). The only significant evidence against a
settlement-era date for the KRS is the weathering, and as I noted above,
to check that will require research into the artificial weathering of
similar stone. And as Steve Marcus has noted, there are other serious
objections to the claim of authenticity.
David B.
Daryl Krupa
> Eric Stevens wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:12:11 +0000, "David B."
> > <tronospamc...@tesco.net> wrote:
> >> First we have the person or persons who submitted the two
> >> runerows for the use of an unknown Masonic-style organisation, possibly
> >> quite a long time before 1883. Second we have all the members of that
> >> organisation, who were subsequently expected to learn the two sets of
> >> runes, the pigpen alphabet, the pentadic numerals etc.
>
> > ... and they had to be in place to allow the KRS to be carved and
> > buried some time before 1855.
>
> No. The stone would have been buried among the roots of an existing
> young tree, so that when the tree was grubbed up the stone would emerge
> automatically- therefore a better date would be 1898 minus 40 years
> plus 5-10 years: 1863-68.
David B.":
The span of allowable dates based on
the date of growth of the poplar roots around the KRS
should be wider:
poplar roots are very flexible, and a proper dating
would require an examination of the roots themselves,
in order to analyze the "reaction wood"
in the flattened part of the roots
to determine how many years previously they had been
bent around the stone.
If only the outer few rings were deformed by reaction to bending,
then the stone would have been emplaced between
and/or beneath the roots only a few years previously.
If the majority of the rings showed reaction to bending,
then the stone would have been in place for a longer period.
Without the roots, we have no way of knowing
how long the stone had been underneath the tree.
A more conservatibve dating range would be
1898 - (5-10 years) minus 40 years = 1848-1893.
> > In fact, the weathering of the stones
> > suggests it all occurred several centuries earlier than its finding.
>
> Sooner or later, somebody will have to investigate artificial weathering
> of samples of stone similar to the KRS.
That is a very big project, insomuch as
all the potential weathering histories of the KRS
would have to be reproduced:
- in the ground for 500 years;
- above ground for decades, then buried for centuries;
- above ground for centuries, then buried for centuries;
- above ground for centuries, then buried for decades;
- buried in the ground for millennia, then above ground for months;
- etc.;
- etc..
Then you have to factor in the weathering that
it would have experienced after it was exhumed by Ohman;
which has also an indeterminate history.
> It is almost inevitable that if the KRS is fake,
> it would have been artificially weathered.
And that's a whole other project.
It can't be done, except for several tens of thousands of dollars,
over decades.
And besides all that, the mineral characteristics of the KRS
are unique: it does not match any known bedrock occurrence of
graywacke.
"Similar" stone is what Wolter examined, which was
not nearly similar enough to allow a definitive comparison.
<snip>
- Daryl Krupa
David B.
> On Feb 11, 6:33 am, "David B." <tronospamc...@tesco.net> wrote:
>> The stone would have been buried among the roots of an existing
>> young tree, so that when the tree was grubbed up the stone would emerge
>> automatically- therefore a better date would be 1898 minus 40 years
>> plus 5-10 years: 1863-68.
>
> David B.":
> The span of allowable dates based on
> the date of growth of the poplar roots around the KRS
> should be wider:
> poplar roots are very flexible, and a proper dating
> would require an examination of the roots themselves,
> in order to analyze the "reaction wood"
> in the flattened part of the roots
> to determine how many years previously they had been
> bent around the stone.
True, but sadly not possible without time-travel.
> If only the outer few rings were deformed by reaction to bending,
> then the stone would have been emplaced between
> and/or beneath the roots only a few years previously.
> If the majority of the rings showed reaction to bending,
> then the stone would have been in place for a longer period.
> Without the roots, we have no way of knowing
> how long the stone had been underneath the tree.
> A more conservative dating range would be
> 1898 - (5-10 years) minus 40 years = 1848-1893.
The start date for that range would make the tree a decade older than
the eyewitness estimates (and indeed, 40 years was the high end of the
estimate range), but yes, dates as late as the 1890s are perfectly
possible. However, if the hypothetical fakers had any sense, they'd pick
a youngish tree, rather than make extra work for themselves (and lose
efficiency in root-flattening too) by inserting the stone between
relatively mature roots.
>> Sooner or later, somebody will have to investigate artificial weathering
>> of samples of stone similar to the KRS.
>
> That is a very big project, insomuch as
> all the potential weathering histories of the KRS
> would have to be reproduced:
> - in the ground for 500 years;
> - above ground for decades, then buried for centuries;
> - above ground for centuries, then buried for centuries;
> - above ground for centuries, then buried for decades;
> - buried in the ground for millennia, then above ground for months;
> - etc.;
> - etc..
> Then you have to factor in the weathering that
> it would have experienced after it was exhumed by Ohman;
> which has also an indeterminate history.
Sadly all too true. I seem to remember making similar points in a usenet
discussion of this topic several years ago- but without such work,
Wolter's rather simplistic weathering comparisons remain "state of the
art" for the KRS.
> It can't be done, except for several tens of thousands of dollars,
> over decades.
> And besides all that, the mineral characteristics of the KRS
> are unique: it does not match any known bedrock occurrence of
> graywacke.
> "Similar" stone is what Wolter examined, which was
> not nearly similar enough to allow a definitive comparison.
Tantalising, ain't it....
David B.
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:12:11 +0000, "David B."
>> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>>> First we have the person or persons who submitted the two
>>> runerows for the use of an unknown Masonic-style organisation, possibly
>>> quite a long time before 1883. Second we have all the members of that
>>> organisation, who were subsequently expected to learn the two sets of
>>> runes, the pigpen alphabet, the pentadic numerals etc.
>>
>> ... and they had to be in place to allow the KRS to be carved and
>> buried some time before 1855.
>
>No. The stone would have been buried among the roots of an existing
>young tree, so that when the tree was grubbed up the stone would emerge
>automatically- therefore a better date would be 1898 minus 40 years
>plus 5-10 years: 1863-68.
The evidence is that roots grew around the KRS - the roots shaped
themselves to the stone. The KRS most definitely was not just buried
within the cluster of roots at the base of the tree.
>
>> In fact, the weathering of the stones
>> suggests it all occurred several centuries earlier than its finding.
>
>Sooner or later, somebody will have to investigate artificial weathering
>of samples of stone similar to the KRS. It is almost inevitable that if
>the KRS is fake, it would have been artificially weathered.
And as you have already been told, nobody knows a way of artificially
weathering greywacke which would not be detected by the kind of
petrographic examination to which the KRS has been subjected.
>
>> I think you will find that in places the KRS uses alternatives to the
>> Larsson runes.
>
>Only as I noted (unless you count the dubious dots found by Wolter)- but
>feel free to give examples I've missed.
>
>>> Comparison of the Larsson papers with Nielsen's transcript of the KRS
>>> runes (although actually I initially made my own transcript from photos
>>> of the stone) and generally accepted conversions of the KRS text to the
>>> conventional alphabet.
>>
>> OK. All your own work. I presume you have not read Nielsen/Wolters
>> most recent writing on the subject.
>
>No. From what little I know of it, I wouldn't trust it anyway.
Aah - you prefer your own evidence.
>
>>> So why are
>>> people like Nielsen attempting to argue a lack of connection?
>>
>> Read his writing on the subject and you will find.
>
>Yes, obviously. But you asked why I was trying to argue a connection
>between the Larsson runes and the KRS runes- and I would argue that the
>connection is obvious, subject to the very slight differences I listed.
>It therefore seems to me that Nielsen is straining to emphasise
>differences, when in reality it is very likely indeed that Larsson and
>the KRS compiler were both taught the same two runerows and pentadic
>numerals.
"connection is obvious" ... "_very_slight_ differences" ... "seems ...
that Nielsen is straining to emphasise differences" ... "it is very
likely" ... All weasel words. Your opinion might carry more weight if
you had carried out the kind of closely argued detailed analysis
undertaken by Nielsen. It might carry even more weight if you had
discussed it with Henrik Williams.
>
>>> I am aware of the timeline of settlement, and details such as the
>>> preponderance of Scandinavian settlers during the early years of Holmes
>>> City from about 1860 onward.
>>
>> When in that time line do you think the KRS was carved?
>
>Probably around 1866, when settlement was about to begin in Solem township.
Have you any evidence as to who might have been responsible - names?
>
>>> Given that the KRS was found in one of the small number of plots in
>>> Solem township reserved as "Internal Improvement Land", it would be
>>> interesting to try and find when, why (purportedly), and at whose
>>> instigation this designation was made- plus, obviously, any later
>>> records relating to the plot before it was acquired by Ohman.
>>
>> Michael Zalar may already have done this.
>
>Possibly, though he hasn't published it- and as a pro-authenticity
>researcher he would have nothing to gain from such research, because if
>the stone is genuine, the history of the land after 1362 is irrelevant.
Michael is an honest researcher. Resorting to a veiled ad hominem does
you no credit.
>
>> You seem to be prepared to weave a very complicated hypothetical
>> structure as an alternative to considering the KRS to be what it
>> purports to be. I think that part of the problem is that you are being
>> mislead by the apparent Masonic connections.
>
>I don't think my theory is any more complicated than necessary to
>explain all the evidence (including the Larsson connection- which takes
>rather more explaining than the pro-authenticity side would prefer to
>admit- and the tree roots). The only significant evidence against a
>settlement-era date for the KRS is the weathering, and as I noted above,
>to check that will require research into the artificial weathering of
>similar stone. And as Steve Marcus has noted, there are other serious
>objections to the claim of authenticity.
>
... that is, it doesn't fit preconceived notions.
Your problem is that you don't want to believe that the KRS is what it
purports to be but you have no real evidence to support your various
hypotheses.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:33:46 +0000, "David B."
> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:12:11 +0000, "David B."
>>> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>>> First we have the person or persons who submitted the two
>>>> runerows for the use of an unknown Masonic-style organisation, possibly
>>>> quite a long time before 1883. Second we have all the members of that
>>>> organisation, who were subsequently expected to learn the two sets of
>>>> runes, the pigpen alphabet, the pentadic numerals etc.
>>> ... and they had to be in place to allow the KRS to be carved and
>>> buried some time before 1855.
>> No. The stone would have been buried among the roots of an existing
>> young tree, so that when the tree was grubbed up the stone would emerge
>> automatically- therefore a better date would be 1898 minus 40 years
>> plus 5-10 years: 1863-68.
>
> The evidence is that roots grew around the KRS - the roots shaped
> themselves to the stone. The KRS most definitely was not just buried
> within the cluster of roots at the base of the tree.
Why not? Do you think that a tree stops growing when a
stone is buried between its roots?
> [...]
Eric Stevens
I don't think that is the case. Riersgord [The Kensington Rune Stone,
Its Place in History - p43] wrote:
---------------------------------------
One way that you know you are on track in solving a puzzle is when you
find unexpected new information that supports your hypothesis. In this
case it was learning that graywacke rock, with the same
characteristics as that of the KRS, was a significant component of the
glacial deposits found over the entire south shore area of Lake Mille
Lacs and Knife Lake region. That area is a massive glacial moraine
known as the Superior Lobe, which gets its name from the fact that it
is material removed from the Lake Superior area by glacial action.
When the glaciers that once covered most of Minnesota and Wisconsin
moved slowly southward, the ice, which was several miles thick, gouged
deeply into the old land surface, and carried away many feet of rock
and soil. That material was then carried along with the glacial ice
until the glacier melted and the rock and other soil it was carrying
was deposited. Geologists have in some instances been able to trace
the movements of the glaciers by identifying rock found in the drift
as having originated from upstream rock formations that were only
partially removed by the glacier. That is the case with the Superior
Lobe.
Graywacke, from which the KRS was made, is a very hard black rock,very
similar to slate, except that graywacke is more massive in structure,
while slate occurs in thinner layers and is more brittle. An unusual
aspect of the graywacke boulder used to create the KRS is that another
mineral, calcite, adheres to a portion of the graywacke surface on the
front. Part of the KRS inscription was carved into that calcite
concretion.
The Superior Lobe contains large amounts of graywacke rock that
glaciers carved out of a huge formation known as the Thomson
formation. One of the unusual aspects of the graywacke found in the
Thomson formation is that it was regularly interlaced with calcite
intrusions, which are clearly visible in the lower parts of the
Thomson formation that remained untouched by the glacier. The presence
of calcite adhering to graywacke on the KRS points to its origin in
some part of the Thomson formation that was removed by the glacier and
later deposited in the Superior Lobe, which as previously noted,
comprises the whole southern shore region of Lake Mille Lacs and the
Knife Lake area.
---------------------------------------
After an extremely close study of the KRS (including both optical and
electron microscopy) Scott Wolter concluded that the source of stone
on which the KRS was carved is the Animikie Group to the east and
north east of Kensington.
> "Similar" stone is what Wolter examined, which was
>not nearly similar enough to allow a definitive comparison.
>
Wolter examined the KRS itself, including a small sample removed for
laboratory testing.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
You ignore the chemical etching of the stone by the roots. That takes
time.
>
>>> Sooner or later, somebody will have to investigate artificial weathering
>>> of samples of stone similar to the KRS.
>>
>> That is a very big project, insomuch as
>> all the potential weathering histories of the KRS
>> would have to be reproduced:
>> - in the ground for 500 years;
>> - above ground for decades, then buried for centuries;
>> - above ground for centuries, then buried for centuries;
>> - above ground for centuries, then buried for decades;
>> - buried in the ground for millennia, then above ground for months;
>> - etc.;
>> - etc..
>> Then you have to factor in the weathering that
>> it would have experienced after it was exhumed by Ohman;
>> which has also an indeterminate history.
>
>Sadly all too true. I seem to remember making similar points in a usenet
>discussion of this topic several years ago- but without such work,
>Wolter's rather simplistic weathering comparisons remain "state of the
>art" for the KRS.
As you know, he was interested in the weathering of the mica grains in
the stone. It was the mica he studied.
>
>> It can't be done, except for several tens of thousands of dollars,
>> over decades.
>> And besides all that, the mineral characteristics of the KRS
>> are unique: it does not match any known bedrock occurrence of
>> graywacke.
>> "Similar" stone is what Wolter examined, which was
>> not nearly similar enough to allow a definitive comparison.
>
>Tantalising, ain't it....
>
>
>David B.
Eric Stevens
David B.
I think what Daryl means is that the old carved stones with which Wolter
compared the KRS to assess the weathering may not have been sufficiently
similar for the comparisons to be as valid as pro-authenticity claimants
like to think.
David B.
David B.
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:00:07 +0000, "David B."
> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> if the hypothetical fakers had any sense, they'd pick
>> a youngish tree, rather than make extra work for themselves (and lose
>> efficiency in root-flattening too) by inserting the stone between
>> relatively mature roots.
>
> You ignore the chemical etching of the stone by the roots. That takes
> time.
I'd forgotten that; further support for my contention that the stone was
buried among the roots when the tree was quite young, decades before it
was found.
David B.
David B.
>> The stone would have been buried among the roots of an existing
>> young tree, so that when the tree was grubbed up the stone would emerge
>> automatically-
>
> The evidence is that roots grew around the KRS - the roots shaped
> themselves to the stone. The KRS most definitely was not just buried
> within the cluster of roots at the base of the tree.
More false logic, as Peter has observed.
>> Sooner or later, somebody will have to investigate artificial weathering
>> of samples of stone similar to the KRS. It is almost inevitable that if
>> the KRS is fake, it would have been artificially weathered.
>
> And as you have already been told, nobody knows a way of artificially
> weathering greywacke which would not be detected by the kind of
> petrographic examination to which the KRS has been subjected.
And as I have already replied, years ago, if the KRS was buried for
decades, and given the treatment it is known to have received after its
discovery, the chances of that confident claim being realistic in this
case are very slim indeed.
>>> I presume you have not read Nielsen/Wolters
>>> most recent writing on the subject.
>> No. From what little I know of it, I wouldn't trust it anyway.
>
> Aah - you prefer your own evidence.
Over the evidence of people who connect the KRS to the fashionable
subject of the Knights Templar- yes, every time.
>> you asked why I was trying to argue a connection
>> between the Larsson runes and the KRS runes- and I would argue that the
>> connection is obvious, subject to the very slight differences I listed.
>> It therefore seems to me that Nielsen is straining to emphasise
>> differences, when in reality it is very likely indeed that Larsson and
>> the KRS compiler were both taught the same two runerows and pentadic
>> numerals.
>
> "connection is obvious" ... "_very_slight_ differences" ... "seems ...
> that Nielsen is straining to emphasise differences" ... "it is very
> likely" ... All weasel words. Your opinion might carry more weight if
> you had carried out the kind of closely argued detailed analysis
> undertaken by Nielsen. It might carry even more weight if you had
> discussed it with Henrik Williams.
What you call "closely argued detailed analysis" I call "squink". As
Erik Hammerstad wrote in this group last year:
"except for some minor differences and one or two mirrored runes, all
the KRS runes are shown in the Larsson manuscript. Why Eric fails to go
and study this himself instead of seemingly relying on Nielsen's
interpretation baffles me."
If you insist on relying on "expert" opinions, try reading the original
DAUM paper comparing the KRS with the Larsson runes.
> Have you any evidence as to who might have been responsible - names?
Duh, no- that's why I think research into Solem and Holmes City
administrative records would be useful.
>>> Michael Zalar may already have done this.
>> Possibly, though he hasn't published it- and as a pro-authenticity
>> researcher he would have nothing to gain from such research, because if
>> the stone is genuine, the history of the land after 1362 is irrelevant.
>
> Michael is an honest researcher. Resorting to a veiled ad hominem does
> you no credit.
I agree that he is an honest researcher, and I greatly value his
contributions- but he has researched what he considers relevant, which
is not necessarily the same as what I consider relevent.
>> I don't think my theory is any more complicated than necessary to
>> explain all the evidence (including the Larsson connection- which takes
>> rather more explaining than the pro-authenticity side would prefer to
>> admit- and the tree roots). The only significant evidence against a
>> settlement-era date for the KRS is the weathering, and as I noted above,
>> to check that will require research into the artificial weathering of
>> similar stone. And as Steve Marcus has noted, there are other serious
>> objections to the claim of authenticity.
>>
> ... that is, it doesn't fit preconceived notions.
>
> Your problem is that you don't want to believe that the KRS is what it
> purports to be but you have no real evidence to support your various
> hypotheses.
Not so. As with other North American controversies such as the Vinland
Map and the Newport Tower, supporters of authenticity attempt to make
their case by promoting unlikely possibilities to the status of
near-conclusive evidence. Their notions are at least as preconceived as
mine.
David B.
Eric Stevens
The reported evidence is consistent with the roots having grown around
the KRS on three sides. It is not consistent with the roots being
wrapped around the tree and then put back in the ground. You need
pictures to fully understand this. Unfortunately I cannot find any on
the net.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
There is no need to wrap the roots around te stones.
When you bury a stone near tree, the roots grow around it.
The same when a tree starts growing near a tree.
Plant or sow a tree on top of, or close to, a buried stone
and in no time the roots of the tree grow around the stone.
What else can it do?
Here is the stone of rabbi Sha'oel Halevi, who died in 1785.
The oak tree (Q. robur) is about the same age.
The oak is a slow growing tree, and what you see is the
trunk, not a root. The overgrowing is much younger than
200 years.
http://www.denhaag.nl/Pics/dsb/Ststr/bomen/eik-Joodse-begraafplaatskle.jpg
David B.
> The reported evidence is consistent with the roots having grown around
> the KRS on three sides. It is not consistent with the roots being
> wrapped around the tree and then put back in the ground. You need
> pictures to fully understand this. Unfortunately I cannot find any on
> the net.
http://tinyurl.com/cpmqq5 =
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2000.03.0048&layout=&loc=245
Now try to imagine those roots several decades younger and more flexible.
David B.
Peter Alaca
It is a Poplar (unspecified)
Fast growing, and (very) young.
Horace LaBadie
"David B." <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
Roots can leach minerals from stone very quickly, especially when the
soils are mineral-deficient themselves. Indeed, the roots might actually
accelerate weathering by the exudation of acids to dissolve minerals.
<http://www.regional.org.au/au/asssi/supersoil2004/s11/oral/1410_littled.
htm>
"...increased mineral weathering in the presence of root exudates,
indicating that plant roots can have large effects on soil geochemistry
and element mobility."
Steve Marcus
You still haven't learned to read for comprehension. Lord knows you seem to
get enough practice at reading, but somehow you just can't (or won't)
comprehend.
Eric, it's you who haven't changed. I read enough of what he wrote that was
posted on the web, as you should well know, since we discussed it at quite
some length. Have you ever asked him why he ventured into this issue, given
that it's not his field? I would bet that it's as simple as the reason why
the KRS turned up in an area populated by Scandinavian immigrants. See if
you can figure it out.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I am proposing that the KRS was created by, or with
>>>>>> the connivance of, somebody who had authority to allocate land plots
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> Solem township, and would be able to keep the burial site reserved
>>>>>> until
>>>>>> such time as it was deemed advantageous for a settler to grub up the
>>>>>> trees and find the stone. If the stone really was created around the
>>>>>> 1850s, then it is likely that its creators were dead, and their
>>>>>> intention forgotten, by the time the plot was finally allocated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Details of the history of the settlement of the region were given in
>>>>> this news group some years ago. Do you have the details? Is this
>>>>> aspect of your hypothesis even possible?
>>>>
>>>>I am aware of the timeline of settlement, and details such as the
>>>>preponderance of Scandinavian settlers during the early years of Holmes
>>>>City from about 1860 onward.
>>>
>>> When in that time line do you think the KRS was carved?
>>
>>What does that matter?
>
> It has a great deal to do with who might (or might not) have been
> around to carve the KRS.
Really? Anyone with access to the Larsson runes and a desire to get some
credit (and well deserved credit at that) for the accomplishments of the
pre-Columbian Norse explorer/traders might have carved the stone. So what?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I'd advise a close study of town administrative records of the
>>>>>> period for both Solem and Holmes City.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you don't have the details. What do you expect to find in the
>>>>> respective administrative records?
>>>>
>>>>Given that the KRS was found in one of the small number of plots in
>>>>Solem township reserved as "Internal Improvement Land", it would be
>>>>interesting to try and find when, why (purportedly), and at whose
>>>>instigation this designation was made- plus, obviously, any later
>>>>records relating to the plot before it was acquired by Ohman.
>>>
>>> Michael Zalar may already have done this.
>>
>>May...
>
> Yep. May.
Which contributes to the discussion in what way ?
List the irrelevancies. Let everyone see how many "coincidences" you're
willing to pile one on top of the other and then dismiss them with a press
of your "Enter" key.
>>
>>No runestone anywhere near locations that can be documented as having been
>>visited by Norse explorers from their Atlantic colonies. No runestones
>>that
>>display the cultural attributes of typical authentic runestones. Just a
>>runestone that specifically identifies no one by name, located at a center
>>of Scandinavian descended immigrants.
>
> Your are describing all the reasons why it doesn't fit your
> expectations for a rune stone. Does it matter that it doesn't fit your
> expectations?
Again, you haven't changed. You know full well that the expectations that I
have for a runestone aren't *my* expectations. They are well documented
cultural norms; we discussed them at length, and at that time I supplied
citations by a professor or two to support my part of the discussion.
>>
>>And the fact that the Larsson runes now provide the answer as to why the
>>experts originally did not believe the thing to be 14th century; the runes
>>would not have been familiar to non-Freemason experts.
>
> It does not at all provide the reasons why the 'experts' did not
> originally believe the KRS to be 14th century. The 'experts' did not
> even know of the Larsson rune row.
Precisely. The experts didn't know of the Larsson runes, and didn't know of
14th century precedents for certain KRS runes either. If you recall, I
explained to you that the lack of knowledge about the runes on the part of
experts did not mean that others out there could not have employed the runes
to carve the stone - I hypothesized small cultural pockets (such as small,
relatively isolated villages) where futharks not well know to 19th century
experts might have been preserved. I was close; it appears that the small
cultural pockets consisted of Freemasons.
>>
>>So: A runestone purporting to be a 14th century artifact, that does not
>>fit
>>cultural norms for such runestones, that employs runes having few 14th
>>century century precedents known to "experts" in the field, but turns out
>>to
>>bear runes closley resembling runes created by a "secret society" of
>>sorts,
>>turns up in a population center people by Scandinavian immigrants
>>aggrieved
>>by Columbus getting credit for their ancestors' discovery.
>
> You are wrong about the lack of 14th century precedents. You are
> probably wrong about the (presumably Larsson runes) being 'created' by
> a secret society.
Sigh... No I'm not. The precedents presented by Nielsen are quite often
strained, and have changed over time. The Larrson runes are a far closer
match to the "questionable" runes on the KRS.
>>
>>What does Occam tell you: A) It's authentic, and the resemblance of the
>>runes to the Larsson runes is coincidence, its discovery precisely where
>>it
>>would be appreciated and where it would be in the interest of the ocal
>>population to believe it to be authentic is yet another happy coincidence?
>>Or B) It's a lately created hoax designed to "stir the pot"?
>
> You are misusing Occam.
No I'm not. I'm suggesting that the simplest solution regarding the KSR is
that someone familiar with runes, and with the Larsson runes, created the
stone in the 19th century and buried it where it would be welcomed when
found.
The complex solution is supposing that an authentic14th century runestone,
memorializing a journey for which there is no firm motive and which would
certainly have been difficult, and which appears to be unique since there's
no record of any similar journeys, and which names no names of participants
or sponsers (as opposed to the chief purpose of a runestone in the Norse
culture) but purports to have been created following a deadly ambush by the
remants of the exploration party, who would have been in fear of their lives
and undoubtedly would have had better things to do than locate, dress and
carve a runestone, would just happen to turn up in the center of a
Scandinavian immigrant populaton center, as opposed to anywhere else in
North America that is not so populated that way, close in time to the 400th
anniversary of Columbus' "discovery," which was something deeply egregious
to a significant percentage of the Scandinavian immigrant population.
Explain which solution Occam would accept.
Steve Marcus
"JerryT" <cg...@post.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:e3629f4b-5328-4200...@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On 11 Feb, 10:46, "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamo...@cox.net> wrote:
snip
>
> And the fact that the Larsson runes now provide the answer as to why the
> experts originally did not believe the thing to be 14th century; the runes
> would not have been familiar to non-Freemason experts.
Exactly what does this mean?
It means this: Stevens argued at length that it would have been impossible
for someone to create a fake runestone, given that the experts didn't
believe the thing authentic. How could someone create a runestone with
runes that the experts were unaware of? The answer, of course, that experts
wouldn't have known, and in fact did not know, about "private furtharks."
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
It doesn't had to have to been buried then. It could have been buried
much earlier and the tree and its roots were a later arrival.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
It was the mica embedded in the stones which he was examining. Only
the mica.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
Flannel. You haven't read them. You don't what Nielsen'c conclusions
are. You don't either the evidence or process of reasoning by which he
arrived at them. Yet you describe them as 'beliefs' which word implies
an unalterable rigidity in his views. Well, there certainly are
rigidly unalterable views in this debate but they are yours.
>Eric, it's you who haven't changed. I read enough of what he wrote that was
>posted on the web, as you should well know, since we discussed it at quite
>some length.
That was years ago, and he's done a great deal since.
>Have you ever asked him why he ventured into this issue, given
>that it's not his field? I would bet that it's as simple as the reason why
>the KRS turned up in an area populated by Scandinavian immigrants. See if
>you can figure it out.
His motives don't matter, any more than do yours. The question is, is
he right. I understand that Henrik Williams largely agrees with him so
he very probably is close to being correct.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am proposing that the KRS was created by, or with
>>>>>>> the connivance of, somebody who had authority to allocate land plots
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> Solem township, and would be able to keep the burial site reserved
>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>> such time as it was deemed advantageous for a settler to grub up the
>>>>>>> trees and find the stone. If the stone really was created around the
>>>>>>> 1850s, then it is likely that its creators were dead, and their
>>>>>>> intention forgotten, by the time the plot was finally allocated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Details of the history of the settlement of the region were given in
>>>>>> this news group some years ago. Do you have the details? Is this
>>>>>> aspect of your hypothesis even possible?
>>>>>
>>>>>I am aware of the timeline of settlement, and details such as the
>>>>>preponderance of Scandinavian settlers during the early years of Holmes
>>>>>City from about 1860 onward.
>>>>
>>>> When in that time line do you think the KRS was carved?
>>>
>>>What does that matter?
>>
>> It has a great deal to do with who might (or might not) have been
>> around to carve the KRS.
>
>Really? Anyone with access to the Larsson runes and a desire to get some
>credit (and well deserved credit at that) for the accomplishments of the
>pre-Columbian Norse explorer/traders might have carved the stone. So what?
More innuendo. But you don't have a skerrick of evidence to support
that hypothesis.
Lay it out in detail first. Otherwise I'm going to have to try and
create your or Davids hypothesis for you.
>
>>>
>>>No runestone anywhere near locations that can be documented as having been
>>>visited by Norse explorers from their Atlantic colonies. No runestones
>>>that
>>>display the cultural attributes of typical authentic runestones. Just a
>>>runestone that specifically identifies no one by name, located at a center
>>>of Scandinavian descended immigrants.
>>
>> Your are describing all the reasons why it doesn't fit your
>> expectations for a rune stone. Does it matter that it doesn't fit your
>> expectations?
>
>Again, you haven't changed. You know full well that the expectations that I
>have for a runestone aren't *my* expectations. They are well documented
>cultural norms; we discussed them at length, and at that time I supplied
>citations by a professor or two to support my part of the discussion.
'norms' they may be, but absolutes they are not.
>
>>>
>>>And the fact that the Larsson runes now provide the answer as to why the
>>>experts originally did not believe the thing to be 14th century; the runes
>>>would not have been familiar to non-Freemason experts.
>>
>> It does not at all provide the reasons why the 'experts' did not
>> originally believe the KRS to be 14th century. The 'experts' did not
>> even know of the Larsson rune row.
>
>Precisely. The experts didn't know of the Larsson runes, and didn't know of
>14th century precedents for certain KRS runes either.
That's why they said that some of the runes on the KRS were amatuerish
fakes - that the whole thing was a forgery. Well that line of argument
has almost entirely gone now.
>If you recall, I
>explained to you that the lack of knowledge about the runes on the part of
>experts did not mean that others out there could not have employed the runes
>to carve the stone - I hypothesized small cultural pockets (such as small,
>relatively isolated villages) where futharks not well know to 19th century
>experts might have been preserved. I was close; it appears that the small
>cultural pockets consisted of Freemasons.
Yes, I will give you credit for that. But I think you were lucky.
David B recognised the apparent Masonic link early in the piece.
Unfortunately he decided that the Freemasons concerned had to be
modern and he's been striving to create a suitable hypothesis ever
since. Recent work, which you are not likely to have read, points to a
much older link with Freemasonry. David may well be right, for all the
wrong reasons.
>
>>>
>>>So: A runestone purporting to be a 14th century artifact, that does not
>>>fit
>>>cultural norms for such runestones, that employs runes having few 14th
>>>century century precedents known to "experts" in the field, but turns out
>>>to
>>>bear runes closley resembling runes created by a "secret society" of
>>>sorts,
>>>turns up in a population center people by Scandinavian immigrants
>>>aggrieved
>>>by Columbus getting credit for their ancestors' discovery.
>>
>> You are wrong about the lack of 14th century precedents. You are
>> probably wrong about the (presumably Larsson runes) being 'created' by
>> a secret society.
>
>Sigh... No I'm not. The precedents presented by Nielsen are quite often
>strained, and have changed over time. The Larrson runes are a far closer
>match to the "questionable" runes on the KRS.
Your arguments about Nielsen's work is even more strained, seeing that
have not the foggiest idea of what he has done.
That the KRS is genuine is a good start. It is now more simple to
place a suitable party near Kensington in the 14th century than it is
to explain how and why some one with the requisite knowledge was in a
position to carve and plant the KRS at a more modern time.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>"JerryT" <cg...@post.utfors.se> wrote in message
>news:e3629f4b-5328-4200...@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>On 11 Feb, 10:46, "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamo...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>
>> And the fact that the Larsson runes now provide the answer as to why the
>> experts originally did not believe the thing to be 14th century; the runes
>> would not have been familiar to non-Freemason experts.
>
>Exactly what does this mean?
>
>It means this: Stevens argued at length that it would have been impossible
>for someone to create a fake runestone, given that the experts didn't
>believe the thing authentic. How could someone create a runestone with
>runes that the experts were unaware of? The answer, of course, that experts
>wouldn't have known, and in fact did not know, about "private furtharks."
>
Except that when you trace it back to its roots, it is not a private
futhark, and the 'experts' didn't know about that either.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
I think it was an Aspen. One of the family.
>Fast growing, and (very) young.
Not so fast growing in that climate, especiall if it has a lump of
rock underneath it.
>
>
The reports of those who examined the stump was that it was consistent
with an age of 40 or 50 years.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:33:46 +0000, "David B."
>> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>>> The stone would have been buried among the roots of an existing
>>> young tree, so that when the tree was grubbed up the stone would emerge
>>> automatically-
>>
>> The evidence is that roots grew around the KRS - the roots shaped
>> themselves to the stone. The KRS most definitely was not just buried
>> within the cluster of roots at the base of the tree.
>
>More false logic, as Peter has observed.
What's false about it?
>
>>> Sooner or later, somebody will have to investigate artificial weathering
>>> of samples of stone similar to the KRS. It is almost inevitable that if
>>> the KRS is fake, it would have been artificially weathered.
>>
>> And as you have already been told, nobody knows a way of artificially
>> weathering greywacke which would not be detected by the kind of
>> petrographic examination to which the KRS has been subjected.
>
>And as I have already replied, years ago, if the KRS was buried for
>decades, and given the treatment it is known to have received after its
>discovery, the chances of that confident claim being realistic in this
>case are very slim indeed.
You can't say that unless you know what treatment may or may not have
been obscured.
>
>>>> I presume you have not read Nielsen/Wolters
>>>> most recent writing on the subject.
>>> No. From what little I know of it, I wouldn't trust it anyway.
>>
>> Aah - you prefer your own evidence.
>
>Over the evidence of people who connect the KRS to the fashionable
>subject of the Knights Templar- yes, every time.
Aah - a 'belief'.
>
>>> you asked why I was trying to argue a connection
>>> between the Larsson runes and the KRS runes- and I would argue that the
>>> connection is obvious, subject to the very slight differences I listed.
>>> It therefore seems to me that Nielsen is straining to emphasise
>>> differences, when in reality it is very likely indeed that Larsson and
>>> the KRS compiler were both taught the same two runerows and pentadic
>>> numerals.
>>
>> "connection is obvious" ... "_very_slight_ differences" ... "seems ...
>> that Nielsen is straining to emphasise differences" ... "it is very
>> likely" ... All weasel words. Your opinion might carry more weight if
>> you had carried out the kind of closely argued detailed analysis
>> undertaken by Nielsen. It might carry even more weight if you had
>> discussed it with Henrik Williams.
>
>What you call "closely argued detailed analysis" I call "squink". As
>Erik Hammerstad wrote in this group last year:
>"except for some minor differences and one or two mirrored runes, all
>the KRS runes are shown in the Larsson manuscript. Why Eric fails to go
>and study this himself instead of seemingly relying on Nielsen's
>interpretation baffles me."
>If you insist on relying on "expert" opinions, try reading the original
>DAUM paper comparing the KRS with the Larsson runes.
I've read all of this. I've also read what Nielsen said in response.
It is notable that you have not.
>
>> Have you any evidence as to who might have been responsible - names?
So you don't actually know. Its merely an unsubstantiated hypothesis
at this stage.
>
>Duh, no- that's why I think research into Solem and Holmes City
>administrative records would be useful.
>
>>>> Michael Zalar may already have done this.
>>> Possibly, though he hasn't published it- and as a pro-authenticity
>>> researcher he would have nothing to gain from such research, because if
>>> the stone is genuine, the history of the land after 1362 is irrelevant.
>>
>> Michael is an honest researcher. Resorting to a veiled ad hominem does
>> you no credit.
>
>I agree that he is an honest researcher, and I greatly value his
>contributions- but he has researched what he considers relevant, which
>is not necessarily the same as what I consider relevent.
So research into Salem and Holmes City administrative records is
relevant for your purposes but irrelevant if its done for Michael
Zalar's purposes.
>
>>> I don't think my theory is any more complicated than necessary to
>>> explain all the evidence (including the Larsson connection- which takes
>>> rather more explaining than the pro-authenticity side would prefer to
>>> admit- and the tree roots). The only significant evidence against a
>>> settlement-era date for the KRS is the weathering, and as I noted above,
>>> to check that will require research into the artificial weathering of
>>> similar stone. And as Steve Marcus has noted, there are other serious
>>> objections to the claim of authenticity.
>>>
>> ... that is, it doesn't fit preconceived notions.
>>
>> Your problem is that you don't want to believe that the KRS is what it
>> purports to be but you have no real evidence to support your various
>> hypotheses.
>
>Not so. As with other North American controversies such as the Vinland
>Map and the Newport Tower, supporters of authenticity attempt to make
>their case by promoting unlikely possibilities to the status of
>near-conclusive evidence. Their notions are at least as preconceived as
>mine.
Confining ourselves to the KRS, it seems to me that it is the
supporters of authenticity who are making progress. The opponents are
still stuck with coulda-woulda hypotheses. Find some evidence if you
want to be taken seriously. Arguing from incredulity is not a sound
basis.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
Exactly. The wrapping of the roots is an essential part of the
argument that the KRS was buried some time after the tree had started
to grow. This is necessary to allow it to be argued that the KRS was
buried shortly before it was found. I don't think that this what
actually happened, but there are those who do.
>
>Here is the stone of rabbi Sha'oel Halevi, who died in 1785.
>The oak tree (Q. robur) is about the same age.
>The oak is a slow growing tree, and what you see is the
>trunk, not a root. The overgrowing is much younger than
>200 years.
>http://www.denhaag.nl/Pics/dsb/Ststr/bomen/eik-Joodse-begraafplaatskle.jpg
>
>
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> The reported evidence is consistent with the roots having grown around
>> the KRS on three sides. It is not consistent with the roots being
>> wrapped around the tree and then put back in the ground. You need
>> pictures to fully understand this. Unfortunately I cannot find any on
>> the net.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/cpmqq5 =
>http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2000.03.0048&layout=&loc=245
>
Many thanks. There are other contemporaneous sketches which are
slightly different but you get the general idea.
>Now try to imagine those roots several decades younger and more flexible.
They would have to be quite a few years earlier and that destroys the
argument that the KRS was buried by Ohman or another settler of that
era.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Yep. There are many hard-pan podsils around New Zealand which have
been created by trees leaching soils back to amorphous silica. I'm not
aware of willows/aspen doing that to any significant extent. Nor am I
aware of glacial tills being so affected. Nevertheless you have a
point and it might be worth asking someone who knows about the
subject.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:13:29 +0100, Peter Alaca
> <p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> David B. <tronos...@tesco.net> 12/02/2009 00:58 wrote:
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>
>>>> The reported evidence is consistent with the roots having grown around
>>>> the KRS on three sides. It is not consistent with the roots being
>>>> wrapped around the tree and then put back in the ground. You need
>>>> pictures to fully understand this. Unfortunately I cannot find any on
>>>> the net.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/cpmqq5 =
>>> http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2000.03.0048&layout=&loc=245
>>>
>>> Now try to imagine those roots several decades younger and more flexible.
>>>
>>> David B.
>> It is a Poplar (unspecified)
>
> I think it was an Aspen. One of the family.
Unspecified.
>> Fast growing, and (very) young.
>
> Not so fast growing in that climate,
What was wrong with the climate?
Kensington is in the normal range of several species
of aspen.
> especiall if it has a lump of rock underneath it.
Looking at he roots it had no trouble growing.
> The reports of those who examined the stump was that it was consistent
> with an age of 40 or 50 years.
No, 10. It was only 4 inches thick.
40-50 years is very unlikely, ten much more likely.
"Note. Mr. Ohman and his boy said that the main root
went down the side instead of over the top."
Eric Stevens
<p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> 12/02/2009 05:44 wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:13:29 +0100, Peter Alaca
>> <p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> David B. <tronos...@tesco.net> 12/02/2009 00:58 wrote:
>>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The reported evidence is consistent with the roots having grown around
>>>>> the KRS on three sides. It is not consistent with the roots being
>>>>> wrapped around the tree and then put back in the ground. You need
>>>>> pictures to fully understand this. Unfortunately I cannot find any on
>>>>> the net.
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cpmqq5 =
>>>> http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2000.03.0048&layout=&loc=245
>>>>
>>>> Now try to imagine those roots several decades younger and more flexible.
>>>>
>>>> David B.
>>> It is a Poplar (unspecified)
>>
>> I think it was an Aspen. One of the family.
>
>Unspecified.
>
>
>>> Fast growing, and (very) young.
>>
>> Not so fast growing in that climate,
>
>What was wrong with the climate?
>Kensington is in the normal range of several species
>of aspen.
On second thoughts you might think there is nothing much wrong wit it
but by my standards it is harsh.
>
>> especiall if it has a lump of rock underneath it.
>
>Looking at he roots it had no trouble growing.
Only someone's sketches of the roots.
>
>> The reports of those who examined the stump was that it was consistent
>> with an age of 40 or 50 years.
>
>No, 10. It was only 4 inches thick.
>40-50 years is very unlikely, ten much more likely.
>
>"Note. Mr. Ohman and his boy said that the main root
> went down the side instead of over the top."
I've stopped relying on my memory of what I read several years ago.
Here is an extract from the 'Preliminary Report to the Minnesota
Historical Society by the Museum Committee'. See the last sentence of
the quote.
(My OCR is responsible for the spelling :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------
On bemg cut away the stump carrying the roots lay adjacent lor some
weeks and was seen and noted by several visitors. Estimates as to the
sue and »ge of the tree vary somewhat, some stating that it was at
least ten years old and others that it was from twenty to thirty years
old, and one estimating it as probably forty years old. According to
Mr. Sam Olson, of Kensington, this tree was about four or five inches
in diameter at about fifteen inches above the stone, and about ten
inches in diameter at six or eight inches sbove the stone. The roots
of the tree, especially the largest one which spread over the surface
of the stone, were flattened by contact with the stone during the
period of their growth. 'Die flattening of the roots is an important
feature, as it denotes that the tree had been in contact with the
stone during the whole time of the life of the tree.
In the spring subsequent to the finding of the stone Mr. Samuel Olson
and a party visited the place and made some excavations where the
stone was found, having the idea that tin: men wlio were massacred had
been buried there, and that the x'one was designed to mark their
burial place. He saw,, and ,-'11 his party saw, the stump of the tree
that grew on the stone. Tlie members of this party, besides Mr. Olson,
were the following: Clove Van Dyke, executive clerk to the late
Governor Johnson, then superintendent of schools of Douglas conrify;
J. P. Hcdborg, now at Warroad; John M. Olson, who furnished a team,
now at Alexandria; Albert Larson, now in Ciitmdn; John 70. Johnson, of
Kensington; Emil Johnson, now at Wat-road; Culick Landsvark, living
two miles east of Kensington; and Lars Goldberg, now at Bowbells, N.
D.
Mr. Samuel Olson and Mr. John E. Johnson signed a joint statement that
the tree must have been at least ten years old, and more likely twenty
or thirty years old. The rest of the party have not been consulted,*
but Mr. Joseph Hotvedt stated that he saw the roots and verified the
description of ihzir flatness, "such as would be caused by lying
against a stone."
Mr. Olson made a drawing to show the appearance of this stump when in
contact with the stone. He thinks the largest root ran over and across
the stone, but Mr. Olof Ohman was positive that the largest root ran
down into the ground at the edge of the stone, and that a smaller root
ran across the upper face of the stone. This smaller root lie thought
was about three inches in diameter.
For the purpose of ocular illustration Mr. Holand later procured on
the spot from Mr. Ohman four sections cut across some poplar trees
growing on Mr. Ohman's farm, viz., sections shown in Plates IV and V,
marked a, b, c, d. The certificates of Olof Ohman and of his son
Edward, as well as of Mr. Samuel Olson, are given also. The annual
rings of growth on these sections can be counted as follows: On a, 37
annual tings; on 6, 42 annual rings; on c, 38 annual rings; on d, 31
annual rings. From three to five years should be added for the decayed
centers.
According to Mr. Ohman the tree had the appearance and rough bark of a
stunted growth, illustrated by sections c and d, on which are about as
many growth rings as on the larger sections a and 6. If these sections
a and & fairly represent the size of the tree, and if it still had an
annual growth illustrated by c and d, which certainly were from
stunted trees, the age of the tree was probably nearer fifty years
than ten years.
-----------------------------------------------------
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
>> Unspecified.
So what? You are not an aspen.
http://linnaeus.nrm.se/flora/di/salica/popul/poputrev.jpg
> [...]
David B.
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:14:39 +0000, "David B."
> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> The evidence is that roots grew around the KRS - the roots shaped
>>> themselves to the stone. The KRS most definitely was not just buried
>>> within the cluster of roots at the base of the tree.
>> More false logic, as Peter has observed.
>
> What's false about it?
Tree roots adapt to their environment- including slabs of stone.
>> if the KRS was buried for
>> decades, and given the treatment it is known to have received after its
>> discovery, the chances of that confident claim being realistic in this
>> case are very slim indeed.
>
> You can't say that unless you know what treatment may or may not have
> been obscured.
Unfortunately this all gets rather circular. All we can say is that if
the KRS was artificially aged, the process used was one which is not
easily detectable after an unknown time of burial and subsequent
cleaning etc.
>>>>> I presume you have not read Nielsen/Wolters
>>>>> most recent writing on the subject.
>>>> No. From what little I know of it, I wouldn't trust it anyway.
>>> Aah - you prefer your own evidence.
>> Over the evidence of people who connect the KRS to the fashionable
>> subject of the Knights Templar- yes, every time.
>
> Aah - a 'belief'.
Yes, if you like. However, the real point is that high-resolution
photographs of both the KRS and the Larsson notes are available, quite
sufficient to make detailed comparisons (and to treat with great
suspicion, for example, the claims about dotted "R" runes).
>> If you insist on relying on "expert" opinions, try reading the original
>> DAUM paper comparing the KRS with the Larsson runes.
>
> I've read all of this. I've also read what Nielsen said in response.
> It is notable that you have not.
It is indeed. As I hinted yesterday, I am fed up of straw-clutching
time-wasters like Nielsen, the Barstads, Gavin Menzies, Jacqueline Olin,
James Enterline etc., and I prefer to concentrate on my own analysis of
the primary sources.
>>> Have you any evidence as to who might have been responsible - names?
>> Duh, no- that's why I think research into Solem and Holmes City
>> administrative records would be useful.
>
> So you don't actually know. Its merely an unsubstantiated hypothesis
> at this stage.
Correct- but it's a hypothesis which might be worth following up,
because it fits all the available evidence except Wolter's simplistic
mica comparisons.
> So research into Salem and Holmes City administrative records is
> relevant for your purposes but irrelevant if its done for Michael
> Zalar's purposes.
Well, if it was really relevant for his purposes, I presume he would
have published it.
> Confining ourselves to the KRS, it seems to me that it is the
> supporters of authenticity who are making progress.
Now you've hit the nail on the head. Supporters of unlikely claims can
always make progress, by casting their nets wider and wider. Supporters
of the most reasonable explanation are stuck with the evidence which has
a high probability of being relevant.
> The opponents are
> still stuck with coulda-woulda hypotheses. Find some evidence if you
> want to be taken seriously. Arguing from incredulity is not a sound
> basis.
It's not "arguing from incredulity"- as noted above, it's rejection of
evidence which is likely to have only a tenuous connection to the matter
under discussion. As for evidence against authenticity, even allowing
all Nielsen's "scattered" findings, I don't think the pro-authenticity
side have really understood just how much of a problem the Larsson
papers present. The damage would have been less if Larsson had presented
a single runerow that matched the KRS, because then it could be claimed
that he had found evidence of the original runerow used in 1362. But
because Larsson presents two (and only two) runerows, both of which
contribute significantly to the KRS, the near-inevitable conclusion is
that the KRS was created by somebody who had been taught something very
like the same two runerows, and deliberately mix-and-matched to create
the inscription.
David B.
David B.
> It is now more simple to
> place a suitable party near Kensington in the 14th century than it is
> to explain how and why some one with the requisite knowledge was in a
> position to carve and plant the KRS at a more modern time.
Utter nonsense. All the "modern time" version requires is a single
Swedish person with knowledge of a slight variant on the two Larsson
runerows, and a good dictionary with historic words in, plus a
Rafn-inspired interest in old Scandinavian contacts with America (which
was one reason why so many Scandinavians travelled to America in the
mid-19th century, so there's no shortage of candidates).
David B.
David B.
Wrong. If I create an alphabet in which some of the letters are taken
from one historic text, some from another, and so on, although all the
sources are "public", the alphabet as a whole is "private".
David B.
David B.
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:14:33 +0000, "David B."
> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:00:07 +0000, "David B."
>>> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>> my contention that the stone was
>> buried among the roots when the tree was quite young, decades before it
>> was found.
>>
> It doesn't had to have to been buried then. It could have been buried
> much earlier and the tree and its roots were a later arrival.
True- but all I'm trying to do is explain the flattened roots. In light
of the other evidence, to justify a date "much earlier" than the 1860s
is a great deal more difficult.
David B.
David B.
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:14:14 +0000, "David B."
> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> I think what Daryl means is that the old carved stones with which Wolter
>> compared the KRS to assess the weathering may not have been sufficiently
>> similar for the comparisons to be as valid as pro-authenticity claimants
>> like to think.
>
> It was the mica embedded in the stones which he was examining. Only
> the mica.
Which brings us neatly back to the charge that Wolter's methodology was
simplistic.
David B.
David B.
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:45:18 +0100, Peter Alaca
> <p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> There is no need to wrap the roots around te stones.
>> When you bury a stone near tree, the roots grow around it.
>> The same when a tree starts growing near a tree.
>> Plant or sow a tree on top of, or close to, a buried stone
>> and in no time the roots of the tree grow around the stone.
>> What else can it do?
>
> Exactly. The wrapping of the roots is an essential part of the
> argument that the KRS was buried some time after the tree had started
> to grow. This is necessary to allow it to be argued that the KRS was
> buried shortly before it was found. I don't think that this what
> actually happened, but there are those who do.
Well, in my case, it's an attempt to allow for the possibility that:
(a) The KRS was buried several decades before it was found- hence the
root flattening, but
(b) it was originally intended to be unearthed within months of burial,
so it needed to be found among the roots of a tree which had been
growing for some years.
David B.
David B.
Yes, the tree root evidence is why I have always argued againt Ohman or
any of his contemporaries as creators of the KRS.
David B.
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
As has been pointed out to you, with or without mistakes or slight
variations, the Larsson runes don't provide a complete source for all
the unusual runes on the KRS. Further, in addition to this very
specialised knowledge of 14th century runes, the people concerned
would have needed to have been Masons with time on their hands
sufficient to enable them to carve the KRS in a period at the
beginning (or even earlier) of the settlement period for the area.
Early settlers rarely have such a luxury. Further still, with or
without Rafn, their motivation had to have been such that they were
prepared to bury the stone under a tree and play no further part in
its discovery.
None of this is impossible. Without evidence to support the existence
of such a chain of causation, it is merely very improbable. There is
more evidence pointing to the presence of norse in North America in
the 14th century than there there is supporting your hypothesis.
That's why I made the statement I did.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
But when you trace the characters of your 'private' futhark back to
their roots you discover that you are not dealing with private
futharks. The experts should have known of these publically available
runes and would have known if they had actually looked. This says more
about the work of the early experts who examined the KRS than it does
about the runes.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
The people who saw the stump said that the roots were flattened where
they lay alongside the stone and regarded this as evidence that they
had grown there.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:14:14 +0000, "David B."
>> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I think what Daryl means is that the old carved stones with which Wolter
>>> compared the KRS to assess the weathering may not have been sufficiently
>>> similar for the comparisons to be as valid as pro-authenticity claimants
>>> like to think.
>>
>> It was the mica embedded in the stones which he was examining. Only
>> the mica.
>
>Which brings us neatly back to the charge that Wolter's methodology was
>simplistic.
You would have to defend that view to a bunch of geologists. I
understand that Scott Wolter's methodology has not been challenged by
his peers.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
"Several decades before it was found" the tree and its roots would
have been miniscule.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
I know how these trees grow in my part of the world. A 40~50 year old
tree would have a stump 500mm in diameter.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:58:58 +0000, "David B."
>> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>>> Now try to imagine those roots several decades younger and more flexible.
>>
>> They would have to be quite a few years earlier and that destroys the
>> argument that the KRS was buried by Ohman or another settler of that
>> era.
>
>Yes, the tree root evidence is why I have always argued againt Ohman or
>any of his contemporaries as creators of the KRS.
>
That's a start.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:14:39 +0000, "David B."
>> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> The evidence is that roots grew around the KRS - the roots shaped
>>>> themselves to the stone. The KRS most definitely was not just buried
>>>> within the cluster of roots at the base of the tree.
>
>>> More false logic, as Peter has observed.
>>
>> What's false about it?
>
>Tree roots adapt to their environment- including slabs of stone.
>
>>> if the KRS was buried for
>>> decades, and given the treatment it is known to have received after its
>>> discovery, the chances of that confident claim being realistic in this
>>> case are very slim indeed.
>>
>> You can't say that unless you know what treatment may or may not have
>> been obscured.
>
>Unfortunately this all gets rather circular. All we can say is that if
>the KRS was artificially aged, the process used was one which is not
>easily detectable after an unknown time of burial and subsequent
>cleaning etc.
It's not hard to ask (a) what would have been the effect of the known
maltreatments to which the stone had been exposed and (b) and what
were the clues in the surface of the stone as to its previous
environment.
Somebody has already given that information in this news group.
>
>> Confining ourselves to the KRS, it seems to me that it is the
>> supporters of authenticity who are making progress.
>
>Now you've hit the nail on the head. Supporters of unlikely claims can
>always make progress, by casting their nets wider and wider. Supporters
>of the most reasonable explanation are stuck with the evidence which has
>a high probability of being relevant.
In this case the significant difference is that those who are making
progress are those who are actually looking for evidence.
>
>> The opponents are
>> still stuck with coulda-woulda hypotheses. Find some evidence if you
>> want to be taken seriously. Arguing from incredulity is not a sound
>> basis.
>
>It's not "arguing from incredulity"- as noted above, it's rejection of
>evidence which is likely to have only a tenuous connection to the matter
>under discussion. As for evidence against authenticity, even allowing
>all Nielsen's "scattered" findings, I don't think the pro-authenticity
>side have really understood just how much of a problem the Larsson
>papers present. The damage would have been less if Larsson had presented
>a single runerow that matched the KRS, because then it could be claimed
>that he had found evidence of the original runerow used in 1362. But
>because Larsson presents two (and only two) runerows, both of which
>contribute significantly to the KRS, the near-inevitable conclusion is
>that the KRS was created by somebody who had been taught something very
>like the same two runerows, and deliberately mix-and-matched to create
>the inscription.
... and being "taught something very like the same two runerows" is
somehow more damaging than being taught the same two rune rows?
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
And what is the diameter at ten years? 200 mm (4 inch/20 cm)?
David B.
> rOn Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:33:35 +0000, "David B."
> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> It is now more simple to
>>> place a suitable party near Kensington in the 14th century than it is
>>> to explain how and why some one with the requisite knowledge was in a
>>> position to carve and plant the KRS at a more modern time.
>> Utter nonsense. All the "modern time" version requires is a single
>> Swedish person with knowledge of a slight variant on the two Larsson
>> runerows, and a good dictionary with historic words in, plus a
>> Rafn-inspired interest in old Scandinavian contacts with America (which
>> was one reason why so many Scandinavians travelled to America in the
>> mid-19th century, so there's no shortage of candidates).
>
> As has been pointed out to you, with or without mistakes or slight
> variations, the Larsson runes don't provide a complete source for all
> the unusual runes on the KRS.
To show why I firmly disagree with that oft-repeated claim, I have
compiled a rune-by-rune comparison for the side face of the stone:
http://homepages.tesco.net/~trochos/krs-side-larsson.jpg
Red are from Larsson's first runerow
Green are from his second runerow
Blue/purple are effectively common to both rows
I have included both Larsson's "G" runes to show how the KRS has
features from each.
I could do the same for the front, but I think what I've done so far is
quite enough to demonstrate that, barring the small exceptions I listed
a couple of days ago, and minor variations like the angles of the "S"
rune, all runes on the KRS are Larsson-type runes.
> Further, in addition to this very
> specialised knowledge of 14th century runes, the people concerned
> would have needed to have been Masons with time on their hands
> sufficient to enable them to carve the KRS in a period at the
> beginning (or even earlier) of the settlement period for the area.
> Early settlers rarely have such a luxury.
On the contrary, in a Minnesota winter I think they would have such a
luxury forced upon them.
> Further still, with or
> without Rafn, their motivation had to have been such that they were
> prepared to bury the stone under a tree and play no further part in
> its discovery.
Not quite- my assumption is that they intended to release the hill as a
settlement plot when they judged it would be useful for a new settler to
unearth the stone, but most likely that moment did not come.
> None of this is impossible. Without evidence to support the existence
> of such a chain of causation, it is merely very improbable. There is
> more evidence pointing to the presence of norse in North America in
> the 14th century than there there is supporting your hypothesis.
> That's why I made the statement I did.
The flaw in your reasoning is that the 14th century evidence is rather a
house of cards- if the KRS is a fake, then all of those other runestones
with similar runes are pretty much bound to be fakes too (which is
probably the case even if the KRS is authentic). On the other hand we
can probably trust evidence like the early eyewitness acounts (within
limits- but limits related to memory, not mendacity), and the Larsson
runerows.
David B.
Steve Marcus
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:m387p4d6r8597l149...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:55:33 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:d595p49q9opr7cf0s...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 04:46:22 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>>news:dt24p4h93iddcanuv...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:12:11 +0000, "David B.">>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:54:31 +0000, "David B."
>>>>>>> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if they were known to the person who devised the "secret" runes
>>>>>>>> which form the basis of both the Larsson runerows and the KRS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So now you are requiring two layers of special knowledge. The first
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> the person who, unlike the experts, knew enough about the rare runes
>>>>>>> found in scattered sources to enable them to be incorporated in the
>>>>>>> Larsson rune row. The second is another person who, unlike the
>>>>>>> experts, knew of the Larsson rune row and incorporated some of them
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the KRS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not quite. First we have the person or persons who submitted the two
>>>>>>runerows for the use of an unknown Masonic-style organisation,
>>>>>>possibly
>>>>>>quite a long time before 1883. Second we have all the members of that
>>>>>>organisation, who were subsequently expected to learn the two sets of
>>>>>>runes, the pigpen alphabet, the pentadic numerals etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> ... and they had to be in place to allow the KRS to be carved and
>>>>> suggests it all occurred several centuries earlier than its finding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The lack of some Larsson runes (from
>>>>>>>> complete runerows) on the KRS (a short narrative) is virtually
>>>>>>>> inevitable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why. Are you no longer trying to argue that the KRS used the same
>>>>>>> rune
>>>>>>> row as the Larsson runes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why? Because any short text other than one specifically designed to
>>>>>>feature all letters of the alphabet is likely to miss some out. On the
>>>>>>other hand, when letters of a short text do not appear in the
>>>>>>alphabet-
>>>>>>that's noteworthy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you will find that in places the KRS uses alternatives to the
>>>>> Larsson runes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Comparing the Larsson runes with Nielsen's transcript of the
>>>>>>>> KRS, I find that every KRS rune closely resembles its like-sounding
>>>>>>>> equivalent in one or both of the Larsson rows (even to the extent
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> using the traditional "th" rune for "d"), except as follows:
>>>>>>>> g: mirror version of Larsson row 1 rune / undotted version of row 2
>>>>>>>> rune
>>>>>>>> o: mirror version of row 1 rune
>>>>>>>> v: as row 2, but with dot instead of hook
>>>>>>>> umlaut-u: as row 2, but with horizontal stroke across vertical
>>>>>>>> shaft
>>>>>>>> umlaut-o: as row 2, but with horizontal stroke across vertical
>>>>>>>> shaft
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is your source for this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Comparison of the Larsson papers with Nielsen's transcript of the KRS
>>>>>>runes (although actually I initially made my own transcript from
>>>>>>photos
>>>>>>of the stone) and generally accepted conversions of the KRS text to
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>conventional alphabet.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. All your own work. I presume you have not read Nielsen/Wolters
>>>>> most recent writing on the subject.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Larsson runes were supposed to destroy their notes once they had
>>>>>>>> memorised them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you say this? Is this another element of your hypothesis?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's a very likely explanation for the lack of other copies of the
>>>>>>Larsson runerows, given the hints about a quasi-Masonic context in the
>>>>>>Larsson papers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I have a very small amount of positive evidence- the Larsson
>>>>>>>> runerows and the KRS, both accepted to have existed by the late
>>>>>>>> 19th
>>>>>>>> century, and found thousands of miles apart. The Larsson papers
>>>>>>>> imply
>>>>>>>> that these runes were being actively taught, but no other copies of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> two runerows are known, which suggests that they were intended to
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> kept secret.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the Larsson rune row and the runes of the KRS are not the same.
>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>> why are you trying to argue a connection?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As noted above, in reality the runes of the KRS are all found within
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>Larsson runerows except for the minor differences I describe. So why
>>>>>>are
>>>>>>people like Nielsen attempting to argue a lack of connection?
>>>>>
>>>>> Read his writing on the subject and you will find.
>>>>
>>>>I suspect that Nielsen's writings don't come free of charge ...
>>>
>>> Jeez! You gotta buy his book or the on-line copies of his papers! I
>>> cited the most recent publication that I know of. Are you really too
>>> mean to either buy a copy or borrow it through your local library?
>>>>
>>>>And I suspect that he would prefer his beliefs (and they are truly
>>>>beliefs,
>>>>not just knowledge based upon scientific method) be accepted as
>>>>accurate.
>>>
>>> Great. You haven't read them (otherwise you wouldn't say "I suspect
>>> that Nielsen's writings don't come free of charge ... ") yet you
>>> describe them as 'beliefs'. You haven't changed, have you Steve?
>>
>>You still haven't learned to read for comprehension. Lord knows you seem
>>to
>>get enough practice at reading, but somehow you just can't (or won't)
>>comprehend.
>
> Flannel. You haven't read them. You don't what Nielsen'c conclusions
> are. You don't either the evidence or process of reasoning by which he
> arrived at them. Yet you describe them as 'beliefs' which word implies
> an unalterable rigidity in his views. Well, there certainly are
> rigidly unalterable views in this debate but they are yours.
>
>>Eric, it's you who haven't changed. I read enough of what he wrote that
>>was
>>posted on the web, as you should well know, since we discussed it at quite
>>some length.
>
> That was years ago, and he's done a great deal since.
>
>>Have you ever asked him why he ventured into this issue, given
>>that it's not his field? I would bet that it's as simple as the reason
>>why
>>the KRS turned up in an area populated by Scandinavian immigrants. See if
>>you can figure it out.
>
> His motives don't matter, any more than do yours. The question is, is
> he right. I understand that Henrik Williams largely agrees with him so
> he very probably is close to being correct.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am proposing that the KRS was created by, or with
>>>>>>>> the connivance of, somebody who had authority to allocate land
>>>>>>>> plots
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> Solem township, and would be able to keep the burial site reserved
>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>> such time as it was deemed advantageous for a settler to grub up
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> trees and find the stone. If the stone really was created around
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> 1850s, then it is likely that its creators were dead, and their
>>>>>>>> intention forgotten, by the time the plot was finally allocated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Details of the history of the settlement of the region were given in
>>>>>>> this news group some years ago. Do you have the details? Is this
>>>>>>> aspect of your hypothesis even possible?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am aware of the timeline of settlement, and details such as the
>>>>>>preponderance of Scandinavian settlers during the early years of
>>>>>>Holmes
>>>>>>City from about 1860 onward.
>>>>>
>>>>> When in that time line do you think the KRS was carved?
>>>>
>>>>What does that matter?
>>>
>>> It has a great deal to do with who might (or might not) have been
>>> around to carve the KRS.
>>
>>Really? Anyone with access to the Larsson runes and a desire to get some
>>credit (and well deserved credit at that) for the accomplishments of the
>>pre-Columbian Norse explorer/traders might have carved the stone. So
>>what?
>
> More innuendo. But you don't have a skerrick of evidence to support
> that hypothesis.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd advise a close study of town administrative records of the
>>>>>>>> period for both Solem and Holmes City.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you don't have the details. What do you expect to find in the
>>>>>>> respective administrative records?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Given that the KRS was found in one of the small number of plots in
>>>>>>Solem township reserved as "Internal Improvement Land", it would be
>>>>>>interesting to try and find when, why (purportedly), and at whose
>>>>>>instigation this designation was made- plus, obviously, any later
>>>>>>records relating to the plot before it was acquired by Ohman.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael Zalar may already have done this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep. May.
>>
>>Which contributes to the discussion in what way ?
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The development of modern
>>>>>>>> Swedish had only just begun in 1362, yet the KRS displays a wide
>>>>>>>> variety
>>>>>>>> of linguistic developments which occurred only in isolation during
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> medieval period. However, the KRS does display some forms which
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> archaic by the 19th century, and would have survived only in areas
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> little exposure to modern literature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My recollection is that Williams described the language as 'modern'
>>>>>>> only in the sense that it is consistent with a period later than
>>>>>>> 1362.
>>>>>>> It didn't need to be much later and he certainly didn't mean that it
>>>>>>> was consistent with 19th century Swedish. My present understanding
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> that more recent studies have largely removed the description of
>>>>>>> 'modern'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The KRS language is sufficiently "modern" to be understood without
>>>>>>much
>>>>>>difficulty by 21st century Swedes, which would not be true of most
>>>>>>14th
>>>>>>century texts, littered with unfamiliar case endings etc. In the other
>>>>>>direction, it has belatedly occurred to me that the KRS archaisms
>>>>>>could
>>>>>>be deliberate, the result of a 19th century author looking through the
>>>>>>dictionary for words noted specifically as obsolete.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be prepared to weave a very complicated hypothetical
>>>>> structure as an alternative to considering the KRS to be what it
>>>>> purports to be. I think that part of the problem is that you are being
>>>>> mislead by the apparent Masonic connections.
>>>>
>>>>Do you argue that David's hypotheticals require more complexity than the
>>>>circumstance of this runestone just happening to have been discovered in
>>>>a
>>>>section of North America with a large population of Scandinavian
>>>>immigrants,
>>>>many of whom felt aggrieved that their ancestors weren't getting the
>>>>credit
>>>>for "discovering America" that was conveyed on Columbus?
>>>
>>> There is no complexity in the scenario you describe once you omit the
>>> irrelevancies.
>>
>>List the irrelevancies. Let everyone see how many "coincidences" you're
>>willing to pile one on top of the other and then dismiss them with a press
>>of your "Enter" key.
>
> Lay it out in detail first. Otherwise I'm going to have to try and
> create your or Davids hypothesis for you.
>>
>>>>
>>>>No runestone anywhere near locations that can be documented as having
>>>>been
>>>>visited by Norse explorers from their Atlantic colonies. No runestones
>>>>that
>>>>display the cultural attributes of typical authentic runestones. Just a
>>>>runestone that specifically identifies no one by name, located at a
>>>>center
>>>>of Scandinavian descended immigrants.
>>>
>>> Your are describing all the reasons why it doesn't fit your
>>> expectations for a rune stone. Does it matter that it doesn't fit your
>>> expectations?
>>
>>Again, you haven't changed. You know full well that the expectations that
>>I
>>have for a runestone aren't *my* expectations. They are well documented
>>cultural norms; we discussed them at length, and at that time I supplied
>>citations by a professor or two to support my part of the discussion.
>
> 'norms' they may be, but absolutes they are not.
>>
>>>>
>>>>And the fact that the Larsson runes now provide the answer as to why the
>>>>experts originally did not believe the thing to be 14th century; the
>>>>runes
>>>>would not have been familiar to non-Freemason experts.
>>>
>>> It does not at all provide the reasons why the 'experts' did not
>>> originally believe the KRS to be 14th century. The 'experts' did not
>>> even know of the Larsson rune row.
>>
>>Precisely. The experts didn't know of the Larsson runes, and didn't know
>>of
>>14th century precedents for certain KRS runes either.
>
> That's why they said that some of the runes on the KRS were amatuerish
> fakes - that the whole thing was a forgery. Well that line of argument
> has almost entirely gone now.
>
>>If you recall, I
>>explained to you that the lack of knowledge about the runes on the part of
>>experts did not mean that others out there could not have employed the
>>runes
>>to carve the stone - I hypothesized small cultural pockets (such as small,
>>relatively isolated villages) where futharks not well know to 19th century
>>experts might have been preserved. I was close; it appears that the small
>>cultural pockets consisted of Freemasons.
>
> Yes, I will give you credit for that. But I think you were lucky.
> David B recognised the apparent Masonic link early in the piece.
> Unfortunately he decided that the Freemasons concerned had to be
> modern and he's been striving to create a suitable hypothesis ever
> since. Recent work, which you are not likely to have read, points to a
> much older link with Freemasonry. David may well be right, for all the
> wrong reasons.
>>
>>>>
>>>>So: A runestone purporting to be a 14th century artifact, that does not
>>>>fit
>>>>cultural norms for such runestones, that employs runes having few 14th
>>>>century century precedents known to "experts" in the field, but turns
>>>>out
>>>>to
>>>>bear runes closley resembling runes created by a "secret society" of
>>>>sorts,
>>>>turns up in a population center people by Scandinavian immigrants
>>>>aggrieved
>>>>by Columbus getting credit for their ancestors' discovery.
>>>
>>> You are wrong about the lack of 14th century precedents. You are
>>> probably wrong about the (presumably Larsson runes) being 'created' by
>>> a secret society.
>>
>>Sigh... No I'm not. The precedents presented by Nielsen are quite often
>>strained, and have changed over time. The Larrson runes are a far closer
>>match to the "questionable" runes on the KRS.
>
> Your arguments about Nielsen's work is even more strained, seeing that
> have not the foggiest idea of what he has done.
>>
>>>>
>>>>What does Occam tell you: A) It's authentic, and the resemblance of the
>>>>runes to the Larsson runes is coincidence, its discovery precisely where
>>>>it
>>>>would be appreciated and where it would be in the interest of the ocal
>>>>population to believe it to be authentic is yet another happy
>>>>coincidence?
>>>>Or B) It's a lately created hoax designed to "stir the pot"?
>>>
>>> You are misusing Occam.
>>
>>No I'm not. I'm suggesting that the simplest solution regarding the KSR
>>is
>>that someone familiar with runes, and with the Larsson runes, created the
>>stone in the 19th century and buried it where it would be welcomed when
>>found.
>>
>>The complex solution is supposing that an authentic14th century runestone,
>>memorializing a journey for which there is no firm motive and which would
>>certainly have been difficult, and which appears to be unique since
>>there's
>>no record of any similar journeys, and which names no names of
>>participants
>>or sponsers (as opposed to the chief purpose of a runestone in the Norse
>>culture) but purports to have been created following a deadly ambush by
>>the
>>remants of the exploration party, who would have been in fear of their
>>lives
>>and undoubtedly would have had better things to do than locate, dress and
>>carve a runestone, would just happen to turn up in the center of a
>>Scandinavian immigrant populaton center, as opposed to anywhere else in
>>North America that is not so populated that way, close in time to the
>>400th
>>anniversary of Columbus' "discovery," which was something deeply egregious
>>to a significant percentage of the Scandinavian immigrant population.
>>
>>Explain which solution Occam would accept.
>
> That the KRS is genuine is a good start. It is now more simple to
> place a suitable party near Kensington in the 14th century than it is
> to explain how and why some one with the requisite knowledge was in a
> position to carve and plant the KRS at a more modern time.
LOL. And you have the stones to speak of flannel...
Why don't you actually address, point by point what I posted regarding what
one has to accept if one argues that the KRS is authentic. Then explain
whether all of that is more or less than one would have to accept if the
thing is a fake. Point by point. You haven't got either the stones, or in
my not so humble opinion, the brains to do it.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
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. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
Eric Stevens
<p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
I should make it clear that we do not have Aspen in New Zealand. What
we do have is Willow, some of which are similar to Aspen. I understand
the two are similar and related. Based on my experience with Willow I
would expect a diameter after ten years of the order of 150mm.
Eric Stevens
David B.
Well, more likely it says something about the 20th century revolution in
public availability of old manuscripts. And the fact remains is that the
Larsson runerows, particularly the second one, appear to mix runes from
various sources, with the result I describe above.
David B.
Steve Marcus
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:57:51 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"JerryT" <cg...@post.utfors.se> wrote in message
>>news:e3629f4b-5328-4200...@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>On 11 Feb, 10:46, "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamo...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>
>>>
>>> And the fact that the Larsson runes now provide the answer as to why the
>>> experts originally did not believe the thing to be 14th century; the
>>> runes
>>> would not have been familiar to non-Freemason experts.
>>
>>
>>It means this: Stevens argued at length that it would have been
>>for someone to create a fake runestone, given that the experts didn't
>>believe the thing authentic. How could someone create a runestone with
>>runes that the experts were unaware of? The answer, of course, that
>>experts
>>wouldn't have known, and in fact did not know, about "private furtharks."
>>
> futhark, and the 'experts' didn't know about that either.
Really. The Larsson futhark isn't deemed by you to be a "private" futhark.
Do the have dictionaries of the English language in New Zealand???? From
m-w.com:
Private:
"1 a: intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group,
or class <a private park>"
Of course you'll take issue, even with this. It doesn't satisfy your desire
for alternative history to be real.
David B.
Substitute "matured there" for "grown there" and we have no argument.
David B.
Steve Marcus
"David B." <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:8rWkl.39694$5z5....@newsfe30.ams2...
Give it up, David. The man doesn't even know the principal definition of
the word "private," and he's a native English speaker. Just like any other
child, he has to have it his way, or no way at all. I'm sorry I even got
involved with this jerk again.
David B.
I bet it would be if somebody else was paying.
David B.
Steve Marcus
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:45:28 -0500, Horace LaBadie
> <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <tZIkl.39649$jz5....@newsfe09.ams2>,>>> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:00:07 +0000, "David B."
>>> > <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> if the hypothetical fakers had any sense, they'd pick
>>> >> a youngish tree, rather than make extra work for themselves (and lose
>>> >> efficiency in root-flattening too) by inserting the stone between
>>> >> relatively mature roots.
>>> >
>>> > You ignore the chemical etching of the stone by the roots. That takes
>>> > time.
>>>
>>> I'd forgotten that; further support for my contention that the stone was
>>> buried among the roots when the tree was quite young, decades before it
>>> was found.
>>>
>>
>>Roots can leach minerals from stone very quickly, especially when the
>>soils are mineral-deficient themselves. Indeed, the roots might actually
>>accelerate weathering by the exudation of acids to dissolve minerals.
>>
>><http://www.regional.org.au/au/asssi/supersoil2004/s11/oral/1410_littled.htm>
>>
>>"...increased mineral weathering in the presence of root exudates,
>>indicating that plant roots can have large effects on soil geochemistry
>>and element mobility."
>
> Yep. There are many hard-pan podsils around New Zealand which have
> been created by trees leaching soils back to amorphous silica. I'm not
> aware of willows/aspen doing that to any significant extent. Nor am I
> aware of glacial tills being so affected. Nevertheless you have a
> point and it might be worth asking someone who knows about the
> subject.
Certainly, you can ask Wolter or Nielsen. But let me save you the
"electrons" to do so; I think that we already know what their answer will
be.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
David B.
>
> "Several decades before it was found" the tree and its roots would
> have been miniscule.
As discussed a couple of days ago, by "several decades" I mean about 32
years. If the tree really was about 40 years old when destroyed, it
could have been about 8 years old when the KRS was buried under it-
young enough to be manageable, but old enough to be more than minuscule.
David B.
David B.
>> All we can say is that if
>> the KRS was artificially aged, the process used was one which is not
>> easily detectable after an unknown time of burial and subsequent
>> cleaning etc.
>
> It's not hard to ask (a) what would have been the effect of the known
> maltreatments to which the stone had been exposed and (b) and what
> were the clues in the surface of the stone as to its previous
> environment.
As Daryl indicated a couple of days ago, it's not that simple. Burial
near the surface of a clayey hill in Minnesota for (by my hypothesis)
over 30 years is a pretty challenging environment.
>>> So research into Salem and Holmes City administrative records is
>>> relevant for your purposes but irrelevant if its done for Michael
>>> Zalar's purposes.
>> Well, if it was really relevant for his purposes, I presume he would
>> have published it.
>
> Somebody has already given that information in this news group.
What, the administrative decisions which led to the plot being reserved
from development for 30 years?
>> Supporters of unlikely claims can
>> always make progress, by casting their nets wider and wider. Supporters
>> of the most reasonable explanation are stuck with the evidence which has
>> a high probability of being relevant.
>
> In this case the significant difference is that those who are making
> progress are those who are actually looking for evidence.
And publishing sensational books with theories about Templars etc.
> being "taught something very like the same two runerows" is
> somehow more damaging than being taught the same two rune rows?
No, being "taught something very like the same two runerows" is more
damaging than being taught a single runerow, when elements from both
those runerows appear as a "mix and match" in a single text.
David B.
Steve Marcus
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:14:39 +0000, "David B."
> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> The stone would have been buried among the roots of an existing
>>>> young tree, so that when the tree was grubbed up the stone would emerge
>>>> automatically-
>>>
>>> The evidence is that roots grew around the KRS - the roots shaped
>>> themselves to the stone. The KRS most definitely was not just buried
>>> within the cluster of roots at the base of the tree.
>>
>>More false logic, as Peter has observed.
>
> What's false about it?
>>
>>>> weathering
>>>> of samples of stone similar to the KRS. It is almost inevitable that if
>>>> the KRS is fake, it would have been artificially weathered.
>>>
>>> And as you have already been told, nobody knows a way of artificially
>>> weathering greywacke which would not be detected by the kind of
>>> petrographic examination to which the KRS has been subjected.
>>
>>And as I have already replied, years ago, if the KRS was buried for
>>decades, and given the treatment it is known to have received after its
>>discovery, the chances of that confident claim being realistic in this
>>case are very slim indeed.
>
> You can't say that unless you know what treatment may or may not have
> been obscured.
>>
>>>>> most recent writing on the subject.
>>>
>>> Aah - you prefer your own evidence.
>>
>>Over the evidence of people who connect the KRS to the fashionable
>>subject of the Knights Templar- yes, every time.
>
> Aah - a 'belief'.
>>
>>>> between the Larsson runes and the KRS runes- and I would argue that the
>>>> connection is obvious, subject to the very slight differences I listed.
>>>> It therefore seems to me that Nielsen is straining to emphasise
>>>> differences, when in reality it is very likely indeed that Larsson and
>>>> the KRS compiler were both taught the same two runerows and pentadic
>>>> numerals.
>>>
>>> "connection is obvious" ... "_very_slight_ differences" ... "seems ...
>>> that Nielsen is straining to emphasise differences" ... "it is very
>>> likely" ... All weasel words. Your opinion might carry more weight if
>>> you had carried out the kind of closely argued detailed analysis
>>> undertaken by Nielsen. It might carry even more weight if you had
>>> discussed it with Henrik Williams.
>>
>>What you call "closely argued detailed analysis" I call "squink". As
>>Erik Hammerstad wrote in this group last year:
>>"except for some minor differences and one or two mirrored runes, all
>>the KRS runes are shown in the Larsson manuscript. Why Eric fails to go
>>and study this himself instead of seemingly relying on Nielsen's
>>interpretation baffles me."
>>If you insist on relying on "expert" opinions, try reading the original
>>DAUM paper comparing the KRS with the Larsson runes.
>
> I've read all of this. I've also read what Nielsen said in response.
> It is notable that you have not.
<major snip>
Has it ever occurred to you that Nielsen and Wolter have a vested interest
in saying whatever they need to in order to propose the KRS as authentic?
There are thousands, perhaps millions out there who will argue that an
extraterristrial flying saucer crash-landed at Roswell New Mexicon in 1949.
Many of them (those earning the most dollars from the argument) are
credentialed and degreed "scientists," who have no qualms at all about
asserting a position that has been thoroughly rebutted by clear and
convincing evidence. I could say the same thing about arguments re the
existence of ghosts, the effectiveness of faith healing, and so called
"Intelligent Design" proponents. It is mind boggling that you seem unable
to think about the merits of the KRS on your own, independently of hanging
on to the latest press release from people who have a serious vested
interest in declaring the thing authentic.
Just something for you to think about, (assuming you are able to actually
think): even if Nielsen were able to find a 100% match for every rune on
the KRS, the position that the thing is real requires accepting many more
assumptions than accepting that it isn't. That doesn't make the
authenticity of the thing impossible, but the bottom line is that there's no
definitive test that will show that one way or another. Not that such
things matter to someone who refuse to except that the Vinland map is a
fake, notwithstanding that definitive tests in fact establish that as a
fact.
David B.
Whoa. Don't forget that the age of the comparison trees indicated by the
eyewitnesses to the Minnesota Historical Society was determined by ring
counting, so the only issue is whether, a dozen years after the event,
the eyewitnesses were correctly remembering what the destroyed tree
looked like.
David B.
Peter Alaca
The tree in question was not dated.
David B.
> David B. <tronos...@tesco.net> 12/02/2009 23:59 wrote:
>
>> Whoa. Don't forget that the age of the comparison trees indicated by
>> the eyewitnesses to the Minnesota Historical Society was determined by
>> ring counting, so the only issue is whether, a dozen years after the
>> event, the eyewitnesses were correctly remembering what the destroyed
>> tree looked like.
>
> The tree in question was not dated.
No indeed; it was probably firewood by the time news of the amazing
discovery got out of Kensington. But the Historical Society did the best
it could in the circumstances, by asking people who had seen that tree
to point out trees which looked similar, which were then ring-dated.
David B.
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
--- snip ----
>> None of this is impossible. Without evidence to support the existence
>> of such a chain of causation, it is merely very improbable. There is
>> more evidence pointing to the presence of norse in North America in
>> the 14th century than there there is supporting your hypothesis.
>> That's why I made the statement I did.
>
>The flaw in your reasoning is that the 14th century evidence is rather a
>house of cards- if the KRS is a fake, then all of those other runestones
>with similar runes are pretty much bound to be fakes too (which is
>probably the case even if the KRS is authentic).
You really are far behind with the play. Sure, as has already been
discussed, the Spirit Pond runestones and one or two others in NA are
open to being fakes but there attested documents and more recently
unearthed stonework in Scandinavia which cannot possibly be part of a
plot to fake the KRS.
>On the other hand we
>can probably trust evidence like the early eyewitness acounts (within
>limits- but limits related to memory, not mendacity), and the Larsson
>runerows.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
--- snip ----
>> That the KRS is genuine is a good start. It is now more simple to
>> place a suitable party near Kensington in the 14th century than it is
>> to explain how and why some one with the requisite knowledge was in a
>> position to carve and plant the KRS at a more modern time.
>
>LOL. And you have the stones to speak of flannel...
>
>Why don't you actually address, point by point what I posted regarding what
>one has to accept if one argues that the KRS is authentic. Then explain
>whether all of that is more or less than one would have to accept if the
>thing is a fake. Point by point. You haven't got either the stones, or in
>my not so humble opinion, the brains to do it.
You are, I suspect, referring to all the things in the KRS which are
atypical of what you regard as a proper runestone. I don't have to
argue them point by point. The characterstics of the KRS are what they
are. We are not trying to get the KRS to join a club, where meeting
the qualifying conditions are necessary. It is what it is.
Eric Stevens
Brian M. Scott
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
<news:mig9p49khakjb1sap...@4ax.com> in
sci.archaeology:
[...]
> The characterstics of the KRS are what they are. We are
> not trying to get the KRS to join a club, where meeting
> the qualifying conditions are necessary. It is what it
> is.
Indeed: a fake.
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
Please go away and consider the implications of "when you trace it
back to its roots".
>
>Private:
>"1 a: intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group,
>or class <a private park>"
I don't know where you got that from. My dictionary (NSOED) has two
columns of definitions. Perhaps the most appropriate to a futhark
intended to be used as a code is "Kept or removed from public view or
knowledge"
>
>Of course you'll take issue, even with this. It doesn't satisfy your desire
>for alternative history to be real.
Of course I will take issue. The particular definition of 'private' is
irrelevant to the roots from which the futhark is derived.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Whoa yourself. That's not what I was asked about.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<p.a...@invallid.invalid> wrote:
What they later did was cut trees which they believed to be of similar
size and _then_ count the rings. Better than nothing I suppose ...
Eric Stevens
Brian M. Scott
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
<news:tqg9p49i52a4r37la...@4ax.com> in
sci.archaeology:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:40:24 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:cb97p4lqomqruorc6...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:57:51 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
[...]
>>>> It means this: Stevens argued at length that it would
>>>> have been impossible for someone to create a fake
>>>> runestone, given that the experts didn't believe the
>>>> thing authentic. How could someone create a runestone
>>>> with runes that the experts were unaware of? The
>>>> answer, of course, that experts wouldn't have known,
>>>> and in fact did not know, about "private furtharks."
>>> Except that when you trace it back to its roots, it is
>>> not a private futhark, and the 'experts' didn't know
>>> about that either.
>> Really. The Larsson futhark isn't deemed by you to be a
>> "private" futhark. Do the have dictionaries of the
>> English language in New Zealand???? From m-w.com:
> Please go away and consider the implications of "when you
> trace it back to its roots".
The implications are obvious: you're either stupid enough to
believe that the roots are relevant, or dishonest enough to
pretend that you do.
>>Private:
>> "1 a: intended for or restricted to the use of a
>> particular person, group, or class <a private park>"
> I don't know where you got that from.
He told you: m-w.com.
[...]
Daryl Krupa
<snip>
> It was the mica embedded in the stones which he was examining.
> Only the mica.
Eric:
And the chlorite, which he called mica.
And "pyrites" ... and feldspar?
BTW, the micas in the KRS and Maine slate tombstones
were not "embedded", they "just growed" there.
- Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa
> I understand that Scott Wolter's methodology
> has not been challenged by
> his peers.
Eric Stevens:
What am I? Chopped liver?
- Daryl Krupa
Eric Stevens
Hello Brian,
Long time no hear.
I don't imagine you have kept up with the latest developments either.
You might find interesting the section on the runes in the
Nielsen/Wolter book [The Kensington Rune Stone, Compelling New
Evidence].
Don't bother snarling at me in reply. I'll take it for granted.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Are you one of his peers?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Are you saying that there is no precedent for the Larsson runes?
I'm saying that there is a precedent and that they do not derive from
private futharks.
>
>>>Private:
>>> "1 a: intended for or restricted to the use of a
>>> particular person, group, or class <a private park>"
>
>> I don't know where you got that from.
>
>He told you: m-w.com.
>
>[...]
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Sorry, I'd forgotten. You had disputed this with him and he did get a
mite vexatious. :-)
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>And publishing sensational books with theories about Templars etc.
I was going to let this go, but then I thought 'who does he have in
mind?' So, who do you have in mind?
Eric Stevens
Daryl Krupa
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:43:34 -0800 (PST), Daryl Krupa
<snip>
> > And besides all that, the mineral characteristics of the KRS
> >are unique: it does not match any known bedrock occurrence of
> >graywacke.
>
> I don't think that is the case. Riersgord [The Kensington Rune Stone,
> Its Place in History - p43] wrote:
> ---------------------------------------
> One way that you know you are on track in solving a puzzle is when you
> find unexpected new information that supports your hypothesis. In this
> case it was learning that graywacke rock, with the same
> characteristics as that of the KRS, was a significant component of the
> glacial deposits found over the entire south shore area of Lake Mille
> Lacs and Knife Lake region. That area is a massive glacial moraine
> known as the Superior Lobe, which gets its name from the fact that it
> is material removed from the Lake Superior area by glacial action.
> When the glaciers that once covered most of Minnesota and Wisconsin
> moved slowly southward, the ice, which was several miles thick, gouged
> deeply into the old land surface, and carried away many feet of rock
> and soil. That material was then carried along with the glacial ice
> until the glacier melted and the rock and other soil it was carrying
> was deposited. Geologists have in some instances been able to trace
> the movements of the glaciers by identifying rock found in the drift
> as having originated from upstream rock formations that were only
> partially removed by the glacier. That is the case with the Superior
> Lobe.
> Graywacke, from which the KRS was made, is a very hard black rock,very
> similar to slate, except that graywacke is more massive in structure,
> while slate occurs in thinner layers and is more brittle. An unusual
> aspect of the graywacke boulder used to create the KRS is that another
> mineral, calcite, adheres to a portion of the graywacke surface on the
> front. Part of the KRS inscription was carved into that calcite
> concretion.
> The Superior Lobe contains large amounts of graywacke rock that
> glaciers carved out of a huge formation known as the Thomson
> formation. One of the unusual aspects of the graywacke found in the
> Thomson formation is that it was regularly interlaced with calcite
> intrusions, which are clearly visible in the lower parts of the
> Thomson formation that remained untouched by the glacier. The presence
> of calcite adhering to graywacke on the KRS points to its origin in
> some part of the Thomson formation that was removed by the glacier and
> later deposited in the Superior Lobe, which as previously noted,
> comprises the whole southern shore region of Lake Mille Lacs and the
> Knife Lake area.
> ---------------------------------------
Eric, I was referring to the three phases of deformation
which the KRS has undergone; the Animikie Group
(which is includes the Thomson Formation, but also
the Virginia Formation and the Rove Formation)
that Okajangas opined was the source of the KRS
has graywacke (or metagreywacke) with only
one or two phases of deformation,
according to Okajangas.
We've discussed Reiersgord before, and he is not
an accurate source of geological information:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.archaeology/msg/f9dae10130ae2e4b?hl=en
> After an extremely close study of the KRS (including both optical and
> electron microscopy) Scott Wolter concluded that the source of stone
> on which the KRS was carved is the Animikie Group to the east and
> north east of Kensington.
No, he got that from Richard Okajangas, in or before 2003, and
not on the basis of microscopy, but rather on the basis of
Okajangas' analysis of the relative abundances of minerals
in the KRS, as you told us in 2004:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.archaeology/msg/c1348f15069204f9?hl=en&
> > "Similar" stone is what Wolter examined, which was
> >not nearly similar enough to allow a definitive comparison.
>
> Wolter examined the KRS itself, including a small sample removed for
> laboratory testing.
And he compared the KRS to upright Maine slate tombstones:
similar, but not buried metagraywacke from Minnesota.
- Daryl Krupa
Eric Stevens
<tronos...@tesco.net> wrote:
>To show why I firmly disagree with that oft-repeated claim, I have
>compiled a rune-by-rune comparison for the side face of the stone:
>http://homepages.tesco.net/~trochos/krs-side-larsson.jpg
>
>Red are from Larsson's first runerow
>Green are from his second runerow
>Blue/purple are effectively common to both rows
>I have included both Larsson's "G" runes to show how the KRS has
>features from each.
>
>I could do the same for the front, but I think what I've done so far is
>quite enough to demonstrate that, barring the small exceptions I listed
>a couple of days ago, and minor variations like the angles of the "S"
>rune, all runes on the KRS are Larsson-type runes.
I was going to discuss this in detail but I rapidly found the matter
getting so complicated that I decided to abandon the effort.
Your effort to describe all the runes on the KRS as Larsson-type runes
is overly simplistic and will not stand up to close examination. In
conjunction with various sources the runes on the KRS are discussed
in great detail over some 40 pages in the Nielsen/Scott book and on
page 87 they state "Our conclusion is that most of the Larsson runes
are based on runic models later than the Kensington Rune Stone runes".
Eric Stevens
Brian M. Scott
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
<news:c5o9p4l42oip4s3rh...@4ax.com> in
sci.archaeology:
Nielsen and Wolter, of course.