Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
Kjetil Rå
by editor Erik Tunstad on the Piltdown man, the Kensington runestone and
other famous hoaxes:
<http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2005/mai/1115713815.74>. The article has a
link to a longer critical comment by the editor, where he discusses a recent
article in the Danish weekly Weekendavisen by Danish-born professor of
archaeology Lotte Hedeager at the University of Oslo. In Weekendavisen 16,
2005, professor Hedeager claims that the KRS is genuine. This has been
followed by a riposte ("The Kensington stone IS false",
<http://www.weekendavisen.dk/apps/pbcs.dll/search?startdate=20050214&crit=he
deager>) in no. 17. Both articles are for subscribers only.
Alaca
Who wrote that reposte?
--
- Peter Alaca - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kjetil Rå
"Alaca" <P.A...@as.fake> wrote:
You'd have to subscribe to find out.
Per Rønne
> Who wrote that reposte?
Anders Lund Hansen, MA in history. And, btw, the writer of the first
article isn't described as a professor of archaeology - she may just be
a journalist. As a matter of fact I thought she was just that when I
read the article the first time.
--
Per Erik Rønne
Alan Crozier
news:1gwvbka.f3efll1acwslzN%sp...@husumtoften.invalid...
She *is* a professor of archaeology. That's the frightening thing, that she
swallowed that book without the slightest critique.
By saying that, of course, I admit to being part of the
pre-Columbian-brick-wall conspiracy.
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Philip Deitiker
news:mZoje.138015$dP1.4...@newsc.telia.net:
> By saying that, of course, I admit to being part of the
> pre-Columbian-brick-wall conspiracy.
Oh, you are also a member of the tin cabal.
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net
Inger E. Johansson
news:BEB36634.1F05A%k.r....@east.uio.no
Those who have read both the article and riposte, please note that while
the article refer to and lean to same points which we have had up in
sci.archaeology from Alice Beck Kehoe's book. Facts which are there in
Kehoe's book and can't be disputed. No matter what,
the ripost in Denmark as well as an alike in Norway still hang on to
assumptions and presumptions which been proven false more than once not
only by Wolter and Nielsen but also by Statens Historiska Museum's texts
about the Kensington Runestone as well as by the joint statement
Professor Henrik Williams and Nielsen presented afterwards.
Some here seem to have forgotten the most essential parts,
that some writing the riposts done that as well doesn't especielly help
the naysayers' case.
Inger E
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Seppo Renfors
Alan Crozier wrote:
>
> "Per Rønne" <sp...@husumtoften.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1gwvbka.f3efll1acwslzN%sp...@husumtoften.invalid...
> > Alaca <P.A...@as.fake> wrote:
> >
> > > Who wrote that reposte?
> >
> > Anders Lund Hansen, MA in history. And, btw, the writer of the first
> > article isn't described as a professor of archaeology - she may just be
> > a journalist. As a matter of fact I thought she was just that when I
> > read the article the first time.
>
> She *is* a professor of archaeology.
Oh dear..... so now Erik Tunstad has had a sex change, eh? See:
http://www.forskning.no/personer/1015491127.59
BUT in the first article a professor is indeed mentioned as follows:
"Senest den 28. april i år skrev professor Lotte Hedeager ved
Universitetet i Oslo en artikkel i den danske avisa Weekendavisen der
hun hevder steinens ekthet."
That is to say she writes about it being genuine. So in the Battle of
the Labels, the Professor beats a mere historian.
> That's the frightening thing, that she
> swallowed that book without the slightest critique.
>
> By saying that, of course, I admit to being part of the
> pre-Columbian-brick-wall conspiracy.
Nothing new in that.
The article linked to from...:
http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2005/mai/1115713815.74
...and is inaccurate as all hell:
http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2005/april/1114776893.28
...was also written by Erik Tunstad. Apparently this time the KRS was
discovered in the yard of Ohman's house, by his son Edward...... and
it deals with unsupported conspiracies and points to Nationalism.....
yeah so much for that lot!
Alan Crozier
news:429328FD...@not.com.au...
The writer of the first article (actually a book review) in Weekendavisen
that started this debate was Lotte Hedeager, professor of archaeology. Per
Rønne, who obviously did not know that name, wondered if she might be a
journalist. I corrected that.
I said nothing about Erik Tunstad or his gender or his riposte to Hedeager's
review.
Seppo Renfors
...which was this one:
http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2005/mai/1115713815.74
... and it was most definitely authored by Erik Tunstad. See top left
of article. The author's name is there.
> in Weekendavisen
> that started this debate was Lotte Hedeager, professor of archaeology.
She is only mentioned in the article BY Erik Tunstad.
> Per
> Rønne, who obviously did not know that name, wondered if she might be a
> journalist. I corrected that.
If you speak about a BOOK, then you are not speaking about the
"article" the URL was pointing to (and you referred to as "article").
>
> I said nothing about Erik Tunstad or his gender or his riposte to Hedeager's
> review.
Only his articles are visible!
Alan Crozier
Tunstad's articles were triggered by Hedeager's review. That means that
Hedeager's review appeared first. Get your chronological order right.
If you actually read what Tunstad says, this would be evident:
In April http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2005/april/1114776893.28 Tunstad
wrote:
"Lotte Hedeager er dansk av fødsel, men professor i arkeologi ved
Universitetet i Oslo. I en artikkel i danske Weekendavisen henter hun fram
den gamle diskusjonen om Kensingtonsteinen."
In May http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2005/mai/1115713815.74 Tunstad
wrote:
"Likevel finnes det fremdeles forskere som hevder at Kensingtonsteinen er
ekte. Senest den 28. april i år skrev professor Lotte Hedeager ved
Universitetet i Oslo en artikkel i den danske avisa Weekendavisen."
And just to clarify things again, Lotte Hedeager is a woman, a professor of
archaeology, and author of the review in Weekendavisen that prompted the
riposte from Tunstad.
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Alan
Seppo Renfors
Look, I might be bloody good, but a mind reader I'm not. I'm dealing
with the information provided in the original post in THIS thread -
the complete text that was:
"The latest issue of _Forskning_ ("Research") features a number of
articles
by editor Erik Tunstad on the Piltdown man, the Kensington runestone
and
other famous hoaxes:
<http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2005/mai/1115713815.74>. The article
has a
link to a longer critical comment by the editor, where he discusses a
recent
article in the Danish weekly Weekendavisen by Danish-born professor of
archaeology Lotte Hedeager at the University of Oslo. In Weekendavisen
16,
2005, professor Hedeager claims that the KRS is genuine. This has been
followed by a riposte ("The Kensington stone IS false",
<http://www.weekendavisen.dk/apps/pbcs.dll/search?startdate=20050214&crit=he
deager>) in no. 17. Both articles are for subscribers only."
Here we see that I was correct indeed. Now, if you want to talk about
"Get your chronological order right", start with yourself. For a
starter the original message mentions "Erik Tunstad" already.
>
> If you actually read what Tunstad says, this would be evident:
>
> In April http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2005/april/1114776893.28 Tunstad
> wrote:
But that wasn't part of the initial post, was it! It is linked to from
the article the posted URL point to - and it is the article I
commented on as being inaccurate as all hell. In any event even that
article is written by Erik Tunstad and nobody else.
>
> "Lotte Hedeager er dansk av fødsel, men professor i arkeologi ved
> Universitetet i Oslo. I en artikkel i danske Weekendavisen henter hun fram
> den gamle diskusjonen om Kensingtonsteinen."
>
> In May http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2005/mai/1115713815.74 Tunstad
> wrote:
>
> "Likevel finnes det fremdeles forskere som hevder at Kensingtonsteinen er
> ekte. Senest den 28. april i år skrev professor Lotte Hedeager ved
> Universitetet i Oslo en artikkel i den danske avisa Weekendavisen."
>
> And just to clarify things again, Lotte Hedeager is a woman, a professor of
> archaeology, and author of the review in Weekendavisen that prompted the
> riposte from Tunstad.
Sigh...... here is the chronology again:
Per wrote:
"The writer of the first article isn't described as a professor of
archaeology - she may just be a journalist."
NOTE: "first article" - in the original post there were TWO URL's to
articles only the first is accessible without subscribing. It also
happens to meet the criteria specified by Per: "first article" that he
clearly states is "the writer". He is correct in all aspects other
than gender of the author.
It was at THIS point you insisted:
"She *is* a professor of archaeology."
In reply to Per, meaning the "she" that was mistakenly referred to as
"she may just be a journalist" who was the "the writer" of the "first
article" as that is the only "SHE" mentioned there that you can have
referred to - the author of the article who just happens to be a HE.
You need to be vastly more careful in how you write, IF you want to be
understood in the way you may INTEND. (BTW, an article written by an
Editor is generally called an "editorial", an "article" is written by
a "journalist" or some other person.)
Alan Crozier
I wish I had as much spare time as you, Seppo. ;-)
Per Rønne
> Per wrote:
> "The writer of the first article isn't described as a professor of
> archaeology - she may just be a journalist."
>
> NOTE: "first article" - in the original post there were TWO URL's to
> articles only the first is accessible without subscribing. It also
> happens to meet the criteria specified by Per: "first article" that he
> clearly states is "the writer". He is correct in all aspects other
> than gender of the author.
>
> It was at THIS point you insisted:
>
> "She *is* a professor of archaeology."
>
> In reply to Per, meaning the "she" that was mistakenly referred to as
> "she may just be a journalist" who was the "the writer" of the "first
> article" as that is the only "SHE" mentioned there that you can have
> referred to - the author of the article who just happens to be a HE.
> You need to be vastly more careful in how you write, IF you want to be
> understood in the way you may INTEND. (BTW, an article written by an
> Editor is generally called an "editorial", an "article" is written by
> a "journalist" or some other person.)
Actually, the first article in Weekendavisen was written by Lotte
Hedeager - a woman. The reply was written by Anders Lund Hansen - a man.
As I remember the original article, Lotte Hedeager wasn't mentioned as a
professor. Consequently, I thought she was a journalist. Especially so
since the KRS is clearly a fraud. Why else had it been written not only
in modern Swedish but also in the Swedish dialect spoken by the migrants
in the area where the stone was found?
Had it been written in Old Norse {actually: Old Icelandic} it had been
possible to consider it genuine. Futhermore, the runes used to describe
numbers aren't used until the late 1800s - in letters from the area
where the Swedish immigrants came from. Let me quote from Lund Hansen's
article:
Men det endelige humanistiske hardfact som afliver stenen kommer her:
sjældnest af alle runerne på stenen er de rune-tal som årstallet er
skrevet med. De har ingen paralleller i middelalderens runeindskrifter.
Andre runeformer er i tidens løb blevet brugt til at angive tal, endda
runerne selv der har repræsenteret tal ud fra deres placering i
runerækken, men ingen har set ud som dem på Kensington-stenen.
Men i 2003 hørte en årvågen lokalarkivar i den nordsvenske by Umeå om
stenen, og kom i tanke om et par breve han havde liggende i arkivet. De
er fra 1883 og -85 (altså 13 og 15 år før Kensingtonstenen blev fundet),
og var skrevet at et lokalt brødrepar, som var engageret i lokale
håndværker-laug og politik.
Brevene indeholder forskellige kode-alfabeter, herunder et par udgaver
af runerækkerne. Det har været koder som cirkulerede i nordsvenske
håndværkerkredse i slutningen af 1800-tallet. Og runerækkerne slutter af
med tallene fra 0 til 9 skrevet med nogle hidtil ukendte tal-runer. De
runer er præcis magen til talrunerne på Kensingtonstenen. De andre
usædvanlige runeformer fra stenen findes også eksakt magen til i de
svenske breve fra 1880erne. Og den svenske immigrant som angiveligt
fandt stenen, stammede fra det område, hvor de runeskrivende håndværkere
var aktive. Brevene er tilgængelige på nettet på Umeås Lokalarkivs
hjemmeside: http://www.sofi.se/daum/index.htx .
==
Well, I hope you can read the Danish text quoted. The full text can be
read at:
http://www.weekendavisen.dk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050429/IDEER01/
504280354&SearchID=73209259122821
BTW, Weekendavisen, formerly known as Berling Evening Times, is
Denmark's oldest newspaper. Founded 1749 - and the best and most serious
newspaper in Denmark.
--
Per Erik Rønne
Seppo Renfors
Per Rønne wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Per wrote:
> > "The writer of the first article isn't described as a professor of
> > archaeology - she may just be a journalist."
> >
> > NOTE: "first article" - in the original post there were TWO URL's to
> > articles only the first is accessible without subscribing. It also
> > happens to meet the criteria specified by Per: "first article" that he
> > clearly states is "the writer". He is correct in all aspects other
> > than gender of the author.
> >
> > It was at THIS point you insisted:
> >
> > "She *is* a professor of archaeology."
> >
> > In reply to Per, meaning the "she" that was mistakenly referred to as
> > "she may just be a journalist" who was the "the writer" of the "first
> > article" as that is the only "SHE" mentioned there that you can have
> > referred to - the author of the article who just happens to be a HE.
> > You need to be vastly more careful in how you write, IF you want to be
> > understood in the way you may INTEND. (BTW, an article written by an
> > Editor is generally called an "editorial", an "article" is written by
> > a "journalist" or some other person.)
>
> Actually, the first article in Weekendavisen was written by Lotte
> Hedeager - a woman.
What you and Alan may consider "first" now isn't what the original
post referred to. Please understand that a local minor publications
doesn't get world wide exposure - therefor it is quite impossible to
know about them in other parts of the world. This means, only what is
in the original post can be related to and replies, NOT adding further
information, can only be understood in the context of the original
material posted, as per Kjetil Rå Hauge. As I said to Alan, I might be
bloody good, but a mind reader I'm not.
> The reply was written by Anders Lund Hansen - a man.
> As I remember the original article, Lotte Hedeager wasn't mentioned as a
> professor. Consequently, I thought she was a journalist. Especially so
> since the KRS is clearly a fraud. Why else had it been written not only
> in modern Swedish but also in the Swedish dialect spoken by the migrants
> in the area where the stone was found?
Aha.... and pray tell how could it have found it's way to where it was
found some 100 years before any other known European people visited
the area? That it had the text on the stone already at that time at
least? THAT is the problem deniers have to overcome, though how they
can, I have no idea.
>
> Had it been written in Old Norse {actually: Old Icelandic} it had been
> possible to consider it genuine.
Realistically NO part of the runes, language or dialect plays a part
at all for other than further knowledge of the language, and extent of
their travels in 1362. It does NOT overcome the problem of it being
impossible to have been buried with the text on it by a "forger", at
least some 100 years before it was written! That is something that is
quite impossible to do - therefor arguments that does NOT overcome
that established fact are meaningless.
> Futhermore, the runes used to describe
> numbers aren't used until the late 1800s
...or so some people still believe. The claim above requires a view
that all that has been found is all the knowledge there was - that
nothing new can ever be learned from new finds. This is truly a head
in the sand view!
> - in letters from the area
> where the Swedish immigrants came from. Let me quote from Lund Hansen's
> article:
>
> Men det endelige humanistiske hardfact som afliver stenen kommer her:
> sjældnest af alle runerne på stenen er de rune-tal som årstallet er
> skrevet med. De har ingen paralleller i middelalderens runeindskrifter.
That part has already been shown to be wrong as I understand it.
> Andre runeformer er i tidens løb blevet brugt til at angive tal, endda
> runerne selv der har repræsenteret tal ud fra deres placering i
> runerækken, men ingen har set ud som dem på Kensington-stenen.
Again this would have to be disputed as to accuracy.
> Men i 2003 hørte en årvågen lokalarkivar i den nordsvenske by Umeå om
> stenen, og kom i tanke om et par breve han havde liggende i arkivet. De
> er fra 1883 og -85 (altså 13 og 15 år før Kensingtonstenen blev fundet),
> og var skrevet at et lokalt brødrepar, som var engageret i lokale
> håndværker-laug og politik.
Oh NO!! Not the Larssen papers again. The "logic" behind that is, - If
I write a rune row today, then it makes ALL older runes forgeries. The
Larssen papers have no bearing on anything at all relating to the KRS.
Well, perhaps in the respect that someone in 1883->5 had access to
more runes than are currently known today. This would hardly be
surprising and it would SUPPORT the KRS being genuine more than the
other way around.
> Brevene indeholder forskellige kode-alfabeter, herunder et par udgaver
> af runerækkerne. Det har været koder som cirkulerede i nordsvenske
> håndværkerkredse i slutningen af 1800-tallet. Og runerækkerne slutter af
> med tallene fra 0 til 9 skrevet med nogle hidtil ukendte tal-runer. De
> runer er præcis magen til talrunerne på Kensingtonstenen. De andre
> usædvanlige runeformer fra stenen findes også eksakt magen til i de
> svenske breve fra 1880erne. Og den svenske immigrant som angiveligt
> fandt stenen, stammede fra det område, hvor de runeskrivende håndværkere
> var aktive. Brevene er tilgængelige på nettet på Umeås Lokalarkivs
> hjemmeside: http://www.sofi.se/daum/index.htx .
> ==
Now please explain who had a time machine so they were able to bury
the stone with the text on it, at least some 100 + years before it was
written!
> Well, I hope you can read the Danish text quoted.
Danish isn't my strong point (they talk with a hot potato in their
mouth - and write accordingly :-), but I get the gist of it.
> The full text can be
> read at:
>
> http://www.weekendavisen.dk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050429/IDEER01/
> 504280354&SearchID=73209259122821
It is not available unless one registers - and I'm (relatively) spam
free, so I'm not about to change that.
> BTW, Weekendavisen, formerly known as Berling Evening Times, is
> Denmark's oldest newspaper. Founded 1749 - and the best and most serious
> newspaper in Denmark.
So? It doesn't make what they write accurate or correct. Newspapers
rarely gets things right or report more than their preferred POV -
just look at the rubbish written by Erik Tunstad and that publication
is supposed to be at least one step more respectable than a mere
newspaper.
Per Rønne
> Aha.... and pray tell how could it have found it's way to where it was
> found some 100 years before any other known European people visited
> the area?
Because it never found it ways to Minnesota a century before any other
Europeans visited the area. It was found 1898. And let me quote from the
Great Danish Encyclopædia:
The Kensington Rune Stone, American runestone from the end of the 1800s,
found 1898 in a Swedish-Norwegian settler area close to Kensington,
Minnesota. The inscription tells about arrival of eight "Goths" and 22
Norwegians in 1392, but according to the evaluation of the English-like
mixed language, the partly home-made runes which are rooted in late,
popular Swedish rune tradition and the home-made number systen, all
experts agree in that it is not medieval. Nevertheless, the genuineness
of the inscription is still passionately defended, especially by
Americans. Perhaps the insription is inspired by the World Exhipition in
Chicago 1893 on the occasion of the just held 400-year-jubilee of
Columbus' arrivel in America.
==
Danish:
Kensingtonstenen, amerikansk runesten fra slutningen af 1800-t., fundet
1898 i et svensk-norsk nybyggerområde nær Kensington, Minnesota.
Indskriften beretter om otte "göter" og 22 nordmænds ankomst i 1362, men
efter alle sagkyndiges vurdering af det engelskprægede blandingssprog,
de delvis hjemmelavede runeformer, der har rødder i en sen, folkelig
svensk runetradition, og det hjemmelavede talsystem er den ikke fra
middelalderen. Alligevel bliver indskriftens ægthed stadig
lidenskabeligt forsvaret, navnlig fra amerikansk side. Indskriften er
måske inspireret af de stærke gammelnordiske indslag på
verdensudstillingen i Chicago 1893 i anledning af det netop afholdte
400-års-jubilæum for Columbus' ankomst til Amerika.
==
> > The full text can be read at:
> > http://www.weekendavisen.dk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050429/IDEER01/
> > 504280354&SearchID=73209259122821
>
> It is not available unless one registers - and I'm (relatively) spam
> free, so I'm not about to change that.
It doesn't give spam to register as reader of newspapers on the net.
Nevertheless, I think access demands subsription to the paper.
"
--
Per Erik Rønne
Eric Stevens
Rønne) wrote:
>Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Aha.... and pray tell how could it have found it's way to where it was
>> found some 100 years before any other known European people visited
>> the area?
>
>Because it never found it ways to Minnesota a century before any other
>Europeans visited the area. It was found 1898. And let me quote from the
>Great Danish Encyclopædia:
>
>The Kensington Rune Stone, American runestone from the end of the 1800s,
>found 1898 in a Swedish-Norwegian settler area close to Kensington,
>Minnesota. The inscription tells about arrival of eight "Goths" and 22
>Norwegians in 1392, but according to the evaluation of the English-like
>mixed language, the partly home-made runes which are rooted in late,
>popular Swedish rune tradition and the home-made number systen, all
>experts agree in that it is not medieval. Nevertheless, the genuineness
>of the inscription is still passionately defended, especially by
>Americans. Perhaps the insription is inspired by the World Exhipition in
>Chicago 1893 on the occasion of the just held 400-year-jubilee of
>Columbus' arrivel in America.
I thought that by now you would be aware that the accusation of
"partly home-made runes" has more recently been shown to be wrong. It
follows that so too is the claim that the runes "are rooted in late,
popular Swedish rune tradition". The "home-made number system" is in
fact the system of arabic numbers in the form that it first appeared
in europe.
There are many grounds for suspecting the KRS to be false but the ones
you have cited are not appropriate.
>==
>Danish:
>Kensingtonstenen, amerikansk runesten fra slutningen af 1800-t., fundet
>1898 i et svensk-norsk nybyggerområde nær Kensington, Minnesota.
>Indskriften beretter om otte "göter" og 22 nordmænds ankomst i 1362, men
>efter alle sagkyndiges vurdering af det engelskprægede blandingssprog,
>de delvis hjemmelavede runeformer, der har rødder i en sen, folkelig
>svensk runetradition, og det hjemmelavede talsystem er den ikke fra
>middelalderen. Alligevel bliver indskriftens ægthed stadig
>lidenskabeligt forsvaret, navnlig fra amerikansk side. Indskriften er
>måske inspireret af de stærke gammelnordiske indslag på
>verdensudstillingen i Chicago 1893 i anledning af det netop afholdte
>400-års-jubilæum for Columbus' ankomst til Amerika.
>==
>
>> > The full text can be read at:
>
>> > http://www.weekendavisen.dk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050429/IDEER01/504280354&SearchID=73209259122821
>>
>> It is not available unless one registers - and I'm (relatively) spam
>> free, so I'm not about to change that.
>
>It doesn't give spam to register as reader of newspapers on the net.
>Nevertheless, I think access demands subsription to the paper.
>"
Eric Stevens
Seppo Renfors
Per Rønne wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Aha.... and pray tell how could it have found it's way to where it was
> > found some 100 years before any other known European people visited
> > the area?
>
> Because it never found it ways to Minnesota a century before any other
> Europeans visited the area.
Are you saying someone in Sweden/Norway brought the stone with them,
that had been carved some 100 years earlier? That they managed to
plant this large stone under a tree before anyone arrived in the
district?
> It was found 1898.
So? It most certainly was NOT carved then, but at least 100 years
before that.
Fact: The stone was under a tree that had germinated and grown over
the stone.
Fact: That tree dated back to before any Europeans were in that
district.
Fact: The tree's age predates Ohman's arrival in the USA.
Fact: the runes were carved at least 100 years before the stone was
found.
These are ALL established facts. You cannot get away from them,
WITHOUT a study showing ALL of those to be wrong. It isn't sufficient
you question ONE point and place that in doubt you have to disprove
all of them. No point in ignoring these facts, they have been
established via studies, observations, sworn statements and the like.
> And let me quote from the
> Great Danish Encyclopædia:
No not interested as there is no consensus on the item yet.
>
[..]
> > It is not available unless one registers - and I'm (relatively) spam
> > free, so I'm not about to change that.
>
> It doesn't give spam to register as reader of newspapers on the net.
> Nevertheless, I think access demands subsription to the paper.
Maybe not directly - however they may well sell their list of
subscribers - alternately fall victim to a worm. I think you are also
right on the subscription.
Per Rønne
> Per Rřnne wrote:
> >
> > Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Aha.... and pray tell how could it have found it's way to where it was
> > > found some 100 years before any other known European people visited
> > > the area?
> >
> > Because it never found it ways to Minnesota a century before any other
> > Europeans visited the area.
>
> Are you saying someone in Sweden/Norway brought the stone with them,
> that had been carved some 100 years earlier? That they managed to
> plant this large stone under a tree before anyone arrived in the
> district?
No, it was carved in Minnesota. In the late 1800s.
> > It was found 1898.
> So? It most certainly was NOT carved then, but at least 100 years
> before that.
> Fact: The stone was under a tree that had germinated and grown over
> the stone.
> Fact: That tree dated back to before any Europeans were in that
> district.
> Fact: The tree's age predates Ohman's arrival in the USA.
> Fact: the runes were carved at least 100 years before the stone was
> found.
>
> These are ALL established facts.
They are /not/.
> You cannot get away from them,
> WITHOUT a study showing ALL of those to be wrong. It isn't sufficient
> you question ONE point and place that in doubt you have to disprove
> all of them. No point in ignoring these facts, they have been
> established via studies, observations, sworn statements and the like.
>
> > And let me quote from the Great Danish Encyclopćdia:
>
> No not interested as there is no consensus on the item yet.
There seem to be consensus amongst the experts. But not consensus with
the kind of people who still think the moon landing was a fraud.
--
Per Erik Rřnne
IEJ
"Per Rønne" <sp...@husumtoften.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
news:1gx9uup.1xp397esxb464N%sp...@husumtoften.invalid...
> Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Per Rønne wrote:
> > >
> > > Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Aha.... and pray tell how could it have found it's way to where it
was
> > > > found some 100 years before any other known European people visited
> > > > the area?
> > >
> > > Because it never found it ways to Minnesota a century before any other
> > > Europeans visited the area.
> >
> > Are you saying someone in Sweden/Norway brought the stone with them,
> > that had been carved some 100 years earlier? That they managed to
> > plant this large stone under a tree before anyone arrived in the
> > district?
>
> No, it was carved in Minnesota. In the late 1800s.
That Per Rønne has been proven a false statement as well as a false
assumption. I take it that you due to your prejudice hasn't taken yourself
time to read Wolter's as well as the others testresults or you definitely
haven't understood what's shown beyond any reasonable doubts in those: When
ever KRS was carved it was before 1700 AD. Stop spreading false information.
>
> > > It was found 1898.
>
> > So? It most certainly was NOT carved then, but at least 100 years
> > before that.
>
> > Fact: The stone was under a tree that had germinated and grown over
> > the stone.
> > Fact: That tree dated back to before any Europeans were in that
> > district.
> > Fact: The tree's age predates Ohman's arrival in the USA.
> > Fact: the runes were carved at least 100 years before the stone was
> > found.
> >
> > These are ALL established facts.
>
> They are /not/.
Per Rønne, you are definitely many years too late here. The geologic datas
are ALL established facts.
I take it that you forgotten that it's also been possible to compare with
the H Holland carved as a test in early 20th century. That H is at least 200
years later carved then the rest of the text.
Stop spreading your lies. You better do your homework.
Inger E
Per Rønne
> Per Rønne, you are definitely many years too late here. The geologic datas
> are ALL established facts.
The stone has been cleaned in a way so that it is impossible to say when
the runes were maded. Forthermore, what has been said about the roots of
the tree isn't possible to verify either.
Simply put, the "proofs" are even weaker than the "proofs" for the way
Joseph Smith is said to have found Mormon's Book.
--
Per Erik Rønne
IEJ
"Per Rønne" <sp...@husumtoften.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
> IEJ <Iejoh...@telia.com> wrote:
>
> > Per Rønne, you are definitely many years too late here. The geologic
datas
> > are ALL established facts.
>
> The stone has been cleaned in a way so that it is impossible to say when
> the runes were maded. Forthermore, what has been said about the roots of
> the tree isn't possible to verify either.
Two false assumptions. You might have heard those from someone but
definitely not from someone who knows what he or she is talking about.
First yes the stone has been cleaned but no it's not impossible to say the
lowest age of the runes. That's very easily detected in the tests. Which you
also would have known had you read the results of all the tests. they are at
least made before 1700 AD.
Which directly exclude a 19th century assumption.
>
> Simply put, the "proofs" are even weaker than the "proofs" for the way
> Joseph Smith is said to have found Mormon's Book.
Sorry Per Erik,
I can't help that you aren't among those who have information enough for you
to realise that your lines aren't correct at all. I don't know everything
but what I do know is that the Kensington Runestone either was carved in
1362 or in 1521/22. The more facts that are up on the table the more the
former date seems likely than the later. The most interesting artifacts in
relation to the former date never been discussed in this group. Might be
within a short time depending on what's in Wolter's and Nielsen's book.
In the meantime I will give you one advice: please look more carefully on
the runes carved on stones and wood dating to 1200-1520's. The true
naysayers missed that one of their 'strongest' argument regarding the
Kensington Runes falls down as a baloon hit by a sharp edge had they only
done their homework.
Inger E
> --
> Per Erik Rønne
Per Rønne
> Sorry Per Erik,
Simply put, Inger, I believe much more en the major Scandinavian
expertise than in you. And for sure it is no coincidence that all
encycklopædias call it a fake.
This I can say without having a MA in history or archaeology. "Just" a
MSc in computer science.
--
Per Erik Rønne
Philip Deitiker
news:1gxa6uv.161s0mu13unfscN%sp...@husumtoften.invalid:
> IEJ <Iejoh...@telia.com> wrote:
>
>> Per Rønne, you are definitely many years too late here. The
>> geologic datas are ALL established facts.
>
> The stone has been cleaned in a way so that it is impossible to
> say when the runes were maded. Forthermore, what has been said
> about the roots of the tree isn't possible to verify either.
Worse it was used as a step stone for a barn for a decade.
The tree was no more than 40 years of age.
1898 - 40 = 1848. Ox cart year, the old abercrombie trail past within
a mile of runestone hill.
IEJ
"Per Rønne" <sp...@husumtoften.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
> IEJ <Iejoh...@telia.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry Per Erik,
>
> Simply put, Inger, I believe much more en the major Scandinavian
> expertise than in you. And for sure it is no coincidence that all
> encycklopædias call it a fake.
the major Scandinavian expertise hasn't concluded what they belive, only
linguists who missed that the four runes and 75% of the word they dispute
most to have existed in 14th century can be found in Medieval Age runes
respectively in one single document.......
You missed the most important thing of all for every scholar to keep in mind
doing a study or an analyse:
Never start with prejudice due to what other scholars told you. Do the study
and/or analyse yourself. There have been too many linguists leaning on other
linguists who simply forgotten that among the 9287 non Latin documents in
Svenskt Diplomatarium's register between 1200 and 1400; in Diplomatarium
Norwegicum for period 1319-1387 written by or for representatives of the
Folkunga Dynasty(1089 diplomas); in the Donationslängder for Vreta
Kloster(and other); in Forntida svenska legender(2 missiv of the origin
still exist known as 'Skänningeannalerna' as well as in Legendariet; in
Annals from monestries in Sweden and monestries under St Birgitta Order and
some other very important documents which you and the rigid naysayers
obviously never studied all but one word 'optakelsefard'/'optagelsefard' can
be found there. As for the word 'optakelse' it's used by St Birgitta as well
as for the modern word 'upptaga' when someone entered a convent and when
collect is taken during Service. When? Before 1420. But that's not all the
tithes collected from the three dioceses under Gardar See that still were
active in 1358-1362 has one 'name' in contemporary Norwegian church
documents and annals: Tiundetaka.
So don't try using the words and/or the runes when you dismiss KRS. There
simply isn't any better way to show that you and those you lean to haven't
done your/their homework.
Apart from that, it doesn't matter what you believe or not believe the truth
is still the truth no matter that it's me who wrote about it.
And btw - Wikipedia changed their Swedish page 17th March this year and the
article which refered to the so called Larson papers is now gone....
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensingtonstenen
>
> This I can say without having a MA in history or archaeology. "Just" a
> MSc in computer science.
I guess you didn't study computer science and systemprogramming in early
70th, am I right? I did. No matter that I have 'passed' other exams later on
but it's easier to be able to write your own programs when you are dealing
with so much data as you have to when studying and analysing medieval
documents.....
Per Rønne
> I guess you didn't study computer science and systemprogramming in early
> 70th, am I right? I did.
I had my master degree 1992. Two decades later than what you guesed.
As to wikipedia, it is not a normal encyclopædia. Encyclopædia
Britannica, Store Danske Encyclopædi and the similar Swedish one are
better.
--
Per Erik Rønne
IEJ
"Per Rønne" <sp...@husumtoften.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
They are changing as well. Some have others are about to.
http://users.telenet.be/educypedia/education/runestones.htm
is one example of the former.
Philip Deitiker
> I had my master degree 1992. Two decades later than what you
> guesed.
I tought she finished in '97 her BA in History, at the young age of
48.
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>sp...@husumtoften.invalid (Per Rønne) says in
>news:1gxa6uv.161s0mu13unfscN%sp...@husumtoften.invalid:
>
>> IEJ <Iejoh...@telia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Per Rønne, you are definitely many years too late here. The
>>> geologic datas are ALL established facts.
>>
>> The stone has been cleaned in a way so that it is impossible to
>> say when the runes were maded. Forthermore, what has been said
>> about the roots of the tree isn't possible to verify either.
>
>Worse it was used as a step stone for a barn for a decade.
>The tree was no more than 40 years of age.
That is disputed by Ohman's descendants. They claim that after lying
in the yard for a week or so, it was propped in a corner of the barn.
>
>1898 - 40 = 1848. Ox cart year, the old abercrombie trail past within
>a mile of runestone hill.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Rřnne) wrote:
>IEJ <Iejoh...@telia.com> wrote:
>
>> Per Rřnne, you are definitely many years too late here. The geologic datas
>> are ALL established facts.
>
>The stone has been cleaned in a way so that it is impossible to say when
>the runes were maded. Forthermore, what has been said about the roots of
>the tree isn't possible to verify either.
Sufficient of the original grooves of the inscription remain undamaged
to allow an estimation of age. Tracks of chemical erosion typical of
those left by the tips of the roots as they crossed the stone are
still visible.
>
>Simply put, the "proofs" are even weaker than the "proofs" for the way
>Joseph Smith is said to have found Mormon's Book.
Eric Stevens
Tom McDonald
<snip>
> And btw - Wikipedia changed their Swedish page 17th March this year and the
> article which refered to the so called Larson papers is now gone....
> http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensingtonstenen
The English version still has the Larsson material.
I'd be interested to know how that material was removed from the
Swedish version, why and by whom. Could it have been Inger,
and/or her cohorts? Might a kind Swedish reader check the
discussion on that page?
<snip>
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
Seppo Renfors
Per Rønne wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Per Rønne wrote:
> > >
> > > Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Aha.... and pray tell how could it have found it's way to where it was
> > > > found some 100 years before any other known European people visited
> > > > the area?
> > >
> > > Because it never found it ways to Minnesota a century before any other
> > > Europeans visited the area.
> >
> > Are you saying someone in Sweden/Norway brought the stone with them,
> > that had been carved some 100 years earlier? That they managed to
> > plant this large stone under a tree before anyone arrived in the
> > district?
>
> No, it was carved in Minnesota. In the late 1800s.
>
> > > It was found 1898.
>
> > So? It most certainly was NOT carved then, but at least 100 years
> > before that.
>
> > Fact: The stone was under a tree that had germinated and grown over
> > the stone.
> > Fact: That tree dated back to before any Europeans were in that
> > district.
> > Fact: The tree's age predates Ohman's arrival in the USA.
> > Fact: the runes were carved at least 100 years before the stone was
> > found.
> >
> > These are ALL established facts.
>
> They are /not/.
So where is your proof that overturns those findings of fact? Merely
CLAIMING so doesn't do it. BTW a dictionary is not such a source. The
above facts are well established, well supported and well known fact.
These are the key elements of it that point to it being genuine - the
SOLE key elements that can be relied on for any kind of claim,
including that of a "fake". Burying ones head in the sand ignoring
these issues and waffling on about some side issue these established
facts bypasses completely and renders irrelevant is totally pointless.
> > You cannot get away from them,
> > WITHOUT a study showing ALL of those to be wrong. It isn't sufficient
> > you question ONE point and place that in doubt you have to disprove
> > all of them. No point in ignoring these facts, they have been
> > established via studies, observations, sworn statements and the like.
> >
> > > And let me quote from the Great Danish Encyclopædia:
> >
> > No not interested as there is no consensus on the item yet.
>
> There seem to be consensus amongst the experts.
Wrong.
> But not consensus with
> the kind of people who still think the moon landing was a fraud.
Fair enough, but let me tell you that the moon landing definitely
wasn't a fake, but I don't suppose you will believe that either, eh
:-)
Philip Deitiker
news:nuth915pdplrph0g2...@4ax.com:
>>Worse it was used as a step stone for a barn for a decade.
>>The tree was no more than 40 years of age.
>
> That is disputed by Ohman's descendants. They claim that after
> lying in the yard for a week or so, it was propped in a corner
> of the barn.
They did not originally say that and they have a vested interest in
saying that now.
Alan Crozier
news:Qj7me.726$HN1...@fe02.lga...
> IEJ wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > And btw - Wikipedia changed their Swedish page 17th March this year and
the
> > article which refered to the so called Larson papers is now gone....
> > http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensingtonstenen
>
> The English version still has the Larsson material.
>
> I'd be interested to know how that material was removed from the
> Swedish version, why and by whom. Could it have been Inger,
> and/or her cohorts? Might a kind Swedish reader check the
> discussion on that page?
I can's see any trace of either the presence or the removal of any reference
to the Larsson runes. What I do see is the closing sentence:
"There are fantasies that the vanished Greenlanders went to North America
and were assimilated with the aboriginal population, since legends from
colonists in the USA say that they ran into 'white Indians' who became
extinct as a result of a smallpox epidemic at the start of the 19th
century."
Strange (but far from unusual) that Inger should refer to a site that does
not support her views.
Per Rønne
A Bachelor Degree? In Denmark we call bachelors "baby graduates" {bady
akademikere}. The official duration of study programme for the
traditional Master's degree was six years as was the case with my MSc.
Six years after Bursary Examnination or Arbitur - in reality exams a
couple of years higher than an American High School certificate.
--
Per Erik Rønne
Per Rønne
> BTW a dictionary is not such a source.
I didn't use a dictionary {ordbog} but encyclopedias {leksika,
encyklopædier}.
> > But not consensus with
> > the kind of people who still think the moon landing was a fraud.
>
> Fair enough, but let me tell you that the moon landing definitely
> wasn't a fake, but I don't suppose you will believe that either, eh
> :-)
Of course the moon landing took place. July 21st 1969. Every nation was
able to control it - after all they sent messages to Houston which
everybody could record. And record from where the source came ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
Eric Stevens
Have you seen the film 'The Dish'? Fakery - fakery ...
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:nuth915pdplrph0g2...@4ax.com:
>
>>>Worse it was used as a step stone for a barn for a decade.
>>>The tree was no more than 40 years of age.
>>
>> That is disputed by Ohman's descendants. They claim that after
>> lying in the yard for a week or so, it was propped in a corner
>> of the barn.
>
>They did not originally say that and they have a vested interest in
>saying that now.
There are confusing versions of what might have been said in the early
days (and not just about where the stone was kept) but I have quoted
more or less what what was said at a more recent public meeting by the
sons of Ohman. Why should they lie?
>
>>>1898 - 40 = 1848. Ox cart year, the old abercrombie trail past
>>>within a mile of runestone hill.
>
Eric Stevens
Kjetil Rå
<Iejoh...@telia.com> wrote:
> But that's not all the
> tithes collected from the three dioceses under Gardar See that still were
> active in 1358-1362 has one 'name' in contemporary Norwegian church
> documents and annals: Tiundetaka.
This is a blat--, sorry, patent untruth, proven as such
(<http://tinyurl.com/42v4b>), but presented here for the umpteenth time
against better knowledge.
Philip Deitiker
> There are confusing versions of what might have been said in the
> early days (and not just about where the stone was kept) but I
> have quoted more or less what what was said at a more recent
> public meeting by the sons of Ohman. Why should they lie?
Protect the image of their family from tarnish. I am not accusing
them of guilt, the best opportunity to authenticate the stone was
lost in the early 1900s the stone should have never been allowed to
leave the curative process. Big mistake. Through no fault of thier
own the KRS may have artificially weathered after being return just
by being in a working farm.
If you remember the discussion of the tree, the best opportunity to
perpetuate the fraud was before the Ohman settled, during the ox-cart
years.
Tom McDonald
Thanks.
Doug Weller
>
>"Per Rųnne" <sp...@husumtoften.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
>news:1gxapsy.1y9wvdcaxmfr9N%sp...@husumtoften.invalid...
>> IEJ <Iejoh...@telia.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I guess you didn't study computer science and systemprogramming in early
>> > 70th, am I right? I did.
>>
>> I had my master degree 1992. Two decades later than what you guesed.
>>
>> As to wikipedia, it is not a normal encyclopędia. Encyclopędia
>> Britannica, Store Danske Encyclopędi and the similar Swedish one are
>> better.
>
>They are changing as well. Some have others are about to.
>http://users.telenet.be/educypedia/education/runestones.htm
>is one example of the former.
I will admit that I have never before seen an Encyclopedia that is just a
collection of web links. But to be fair, Educypedia doesn't claim to be an
encyclopedia, Inger is confused about this.
Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
george
Oh you lucky lucky person. Now inger will be able to 'teach' you all
about computers..
ROTFL
Per Rønne
> >Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote:
I don't remember, but I've seen arguments on the flag which seems to
flutter in the wind. On pictures. Just at few days ago I resaw the film
from the landing. It doesn't flutter in the wind. Simply put, the
astronauts didn't stretch the flag - it keeps the same waves on the flag
all the time.
--
Per Erik Rønne
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:q33j91p5trls74qhu...@4ax.com:
>
>> There are confusing versions of what might have been said in the
>> early days (and not just about where the stone was kept) but I
>> have quoted more or less what what was said at a more recent
>> public meeting by the sons of Ohman. Why should they lie?
>
>Protect the image of their family from tarnish. I am not accusing
>them of guilt, the best opportunity to authenticate the stone was
>lost in the early 1900s the stone should have never been allowed to
>leave the curative process.
Some of the worst 'curative' abuses occurred while the stone was in
the care of the Smithsonian.
>Big mistake. Through no fault of thier
>own the KRS may have artificially weathered after being return just
>by being in a working farm.
In a barn???
> If you remember the discussion of the tree, the best opportunity to
>perpetuate the fraud was before the Ohman settled, during the ox-cart
>years.
>
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Rønne) wrote:
'The Dish' is a story about the role of the Australian radio telescope
at Parkes http://pulsar.kicks-ass.net/photos.html in the first moon
landing. It seems that for a while it was the only means of
communication with the moon lander as it approached the moon. Then
thanks to someone forgetting to top up the standby power generator
with fuel (or was it something mechanical?), they lost power during a
power failure which occurred in the critical last hours of the moon
approach. This caused them to loose the lander even when power was
restored.
The film shows the desparate efforts to pick up the lander once again
while the people at the telescope faked communication with the lander
so they wouldn't have to tell Houston of the problems. Fortunately,
real communication was re-established in time.
Eric Stevens
Dylan Sung
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:cqek91lid1blrc727...@4ax.com...
I watched that film in Hong Kong earlier this year. Quite humourous,
starring Sam Neill and a bloke from aussie soap Neighbours.
http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/movies/dish_movie_001012.html
>
> The film shows the desparate efforts to pick up the lander once again
> while the people at the telescope faked communication with the lander
> so they wouldn't have to tell Houston of the problems. Fortunately,
> real communication was re-established in time.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Dyl.
Philip Deitiker
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 12:49:41 GMT, Philip Deitiker
> <Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>>news:q33j91p5trls74qhu...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> There are confusing versions of what might have been said in
>>> the early days (and not just about where the stone was kept)
>>> but I have quoted more or less what what was said at a more
>>> recent public meeting by the sons of Ohman. Why should they
>>> lie?
>>
>>Protect the image of their family from tarnish. I am not
>>accusing them of guilt, the best opportunity to authenticate the
>>stone was lost in the early 1900s the stone should have never
>>been allowed to leave the curative process.
>
> Some of the worst 'curative' abuses occurred while the stone was
> in the care of the Smithsonian.
I was talking about the Minnesota Historical Society.
>>Big mistake. Through no fault of thier
>>own the KRS may have artificially weathered after being return
>>just by being in a working farm.
>
> In a barn???
Or attached to a barn.
Dairy barns are pretty active places, have you ever been inside a
early 20th century dairy barn. There is alot of chemistry going on.
Urine is composed of urea, which breaks into ammonia, a strong base.
Feces from bovines undergoes oxidation to form acids. Urine can very
rapidly create a betina.
Eric Stevens
The only thing is that it wasn't fiction. It really happened that way.
>
>>
>> The film shows the desparate efforts to pick up the lander once again
>> while the people at the telescope faked communication with the lander
>> so they wouldn't have to tell Houston of the problems. Fortunately,
>> real communication was re-established in time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric Stevens
>>
>
>Dyl.
>
>
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
I have seen photographs of the barn in question and it was a large
storage shed rather than a cattle barn.
Eric Stevens
Seppo Renfors
Per Rønne wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote:
>
> > BTW a dictionary is not such a source.
>
> I didn't use a dictionary {ordbog} but encyclopedias {leksika,
> encyklopædier}.
That too.
These facts about the KRS I referred to earlier:
Fact: The stone was under a tree that had germinated and grown over
the stone.
Fact: That tree dated back to before any Europeans were in that
district.
Fact: The tree's age predates Ohman's arrival in the USA.
Fact: the runes were carved at least 100 years before the stone was
found.
...but there is one other fact I forgot:
Fact: The stone itself is local to the area.
[..]
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>
>Per Rřnne wrote:
>>
>> Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > BTW a dictionary is not such a source.
>>
>> I didn't use a dictionary {ordbog} but encyclopedias {leksika,
>> encyklopćdier}.
>
>That too.
>
>These facts about the KRS I referred to earlier:
>Fact: The stone was under a tree that had germinated and grown over
>the stone.
>Fact: That tree dated back to before any Europeans were in that
>district.
>Fact: The tree's age predates Ohman's arrival in the USA.
>Fact: the runes were carved at least 100 years before the stone was
>found.
>
>...but there is one other fact I forgot:
>Fact: The stone itself is local to the area.
>
It depends what you mean by 'local'. There are other similar stones in
the general area but they come from some distance away.
>[..]
Eric Stevens
Per Rønne
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 02:30:32 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au>
> wrote:
> >Per Rønne wrote:
> >> Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote:
> >> > BTW a dictionary is not such a source.
> >> I didn't use a dictionary {ordbog} but encyclopedias {leksika,
> >> encyklopædier}.
> >That too.
> >These facts about the KRS I referred to earlier:
> >Fact: The stone was under a tree that had germinated and grown over
> >the stone.
> >Fact: That tree dated back to before any Europeans were in that
> >district.
> >Fact: The tree's age predates Ohman's arrival in the USA.
> >Fact: the runes were carved at least 100 years before the stone was
> >found.
> >
> >...but there is one other fact I forgot:
> >Fact: The stone itself is local to the area.
> It depends what you mean by 'local'. There are other similar stones in
> the general area but they come from some distance away.
Furthermore, what Seppo refers to as "facts" are only considered "facts"
amongst "the believers".
--
Per Erik Rønne
IEJ
"Per Rønne" <sp...@husumtoften.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
news:1gxdbpf.179v0cnanoa4N%sp...@husumtoften.invalid...
NO Per-Erik,
that's not true. If you exclude the linguists the facts are accepted also by
those who doesn't believe the runestone to be from 1362 but made between
1500 and 1700 AD. You are trying to paint a black and white picture. That's
not the way reality world looks like. Nor the history of the past. What you
seem to miss is that by accepting that the runestone can't have been made in
1800's you doesn't have to arrive to the 1362 conclusion.
The roots have only been questioned by two geologists who assume that the
marks, which directly correspond to where the roots were found, can't have
been made in less than several hundred years.... but they are wrong which
many here in Sweden, scholars of biology, geology and others, told them. We
are many who can show direct examples of Aspen's and other trees' roots
having had same chemical impact of the surface of stones.
Inger E
> --
> Per Erik Rønne
Per Rønne
> that's not true. If you exclude the linguists the facts are accepted also by
> those who doesn't believe the runestone to be from 1362 but made between
> 1500 and 1700 AD.
But most experts think the stone was made in the late 1800s ...
--
Per Erik Rønne
Eric Stevens
How about a few names.
Eric Stevens
Per Rønne
Isn't necessary as long as encyclopædias agree on that.
--
Per Erik Rønne
IEJ
"Per Rønne" <sp...@husumtoften.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
Well that's not true either. Most linguists yes, definitly not a majority of
the scholars of geology, geochemi. There has been a distinct turn around
when it comes to scholars of History. some have spoken out that they changed
their earlier opinion, some has as Smitsonians said that future facts might
change the view and some especially here in Sweden say in private and among
their equal that they don't rule out KRS being true. So a majority isn't a
correct information presented. The figures aren't that clear at all after
Wolter's, Nielsen's and Kehoe's latest works. It's only in the mind of the
naysayers in this group and the linguists that their dream of such a
majority still exist. More than one encyclopedia has changed their
information the last two month, more are to do so.
AND it's important to remember that truth doesn't call for a majority of
scholars to have made up their mind for the truth to be true....
Doug Weller
>
>"Per Rønne" <sp...@husumtoften.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
>news:1gxdfas.zg6x915y5a8N%sp...@husumtoften.invalid...
>> IEJ <Iejoh...@telia.com> wrote:
>>
>> > that's not true. If you exclude the linguists the facts are accepted
>also by
>> > those who doesn't believe the runestone to be from 1362 but made between
>> > 1500 and 1700 AD.
>>
>> But most experts think the stone was made in the late 1800s ...
>
>Well that's not true either. Most linguists yes, definitly not a majority of
>the scholars of geology, geochemi.
Very very few geologists have looked at the stone, though.
There has been a distinct turn around
>when it comes to scholars of History. some have spoken out that they changed
>their earlier opinion, some has as Smitsonians said that future facts might
>change the view
Are you saying that the Smithsonian has actually made a recent statement
on the KRS?
and some especially here in Sweden say in private and among
>their equal that they don't rule out KRS being true. So a majority isn't a
>correct information presented. The figures aren't that clear at all after
>Wolter's, Nielsen's and Kehoe's latest works. It's only in the mind of the
>naysayers in this group and the linguists that their dream of such a
>majority still exist. More than one encyclopedia has changed their
>information the last two month, more are to do so.
Name one.
>
>AND it's important to remember that truth doesn't call for a majority of
>scholars to have made up their mind for the truth to be true....
>
Nope, which applies also to your tiny number of geologists.
Dylan Sung
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 17:29:33 +0200, sp...@husumtoften.invalid (Per>>> Per Rønne, you are definitely many years too late here. The geologic
>>> datas
>>> are ALL established facts.
>>
>>The stone has been cleaned in a way so that it is impossible to say when
>>the runes were maded. Forthermore, what has been said about the roots of
>>the tree isn't possible to verify either.
>
> Sufficient of the original grooves of the inscription remain undamaged
> to allow an estimation of age. Tracks of chemical erosion typical of
> those left by the tips of the roots as they crossed the stone are
> still visible.
I'm wondering if lichens can be cleaned off. If the stone was erected after
a mysterious attack by Scandinavians centuries ago, it would have been
exposed to some form of weathering also. Like tombstones, they would attract
lichens, and it would have eaten into the stone. As I understand it, it was
buried, and wrapped with roots from some type of tree. Even is it had falled
over a few years after it's erection, then one would expect to see
weathering on the exposed area. One would ask how it became to come
underground and burried. Was there a river nearby? Or was the place prone to
annual rains and flooding?
Dyl.
Eric Stevens
Would lichen have survived however many years the stone was buried?
Apart from that, I'm not aware of any direct evidence of the presence
of lichens. However, the surface has had some rather unusual curative
treatment including washing with engine oil and scrubbing with ether.
All that is left is the evidence of the stone itself.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Rønne) wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 10:48:22 +0200, sp...@husumtoften.invalid (Per
>> Rønne) wrote:
>>
>> >IEJ <Iejoh...@telia.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> that's not true. If you exclude the linguists the facts are accepted
>> >> also by those who doesn't believe the runestone to be from 1362 but
>> >> made between 1500 and 1700 AD.
>> >
>> >But most experts think the stone was made in the late 1800s ...
>>
>> How about a few names.
>
>Isn't necessary as long as encyclopædias agree on that.
Then all you can say is 'most encyclopaedias'.
Eric Stevens
Daryl Krupa
Dylan Sung wrote:
<snip>
> I'm wondering if lichens can be cleaned off. If the stone
> was erected after a mysterious attack by Scandinavians
> centuries ago, it would have been exposed to some form of
> weathering also. Like tombstones, they would attract
> lichens, and it would have eaten into the stone. As I
> understand it, it was buried, and wrapped with roots from
> some type of tree. Even is it had falled over a few years
> after it's erection, then one would expect to see
> weathering on the exposed area. One would ask how it became
> to come underground and burried. Was there a river nearby?
> Or was the place prone to annual rains and flooding?
Dyl:
Lichens can be cleaned off, but evidence of their acid-
etching might remain.
The stone has been examined re: weathering; the first
estimate by Winchell gave its age as a certain fraction of
the time since it was last glacially scratched, but because
his estimate of age of last glacial movement in the area was
only about 1/2 of the real age, his estimate would have dated
the inscription to several centuries before the date in the
inscription, so that estimate is out the window.
Wolter's estimate was based on comparison with dated
tombstones of another sort of stone halfway across the
continent, on the east coast, and there is as yet no
confirmation that his analogical comparison is valid.
Besides that, the exposure and weathering history of
the KRS is unknown, which means that there are several
independent and dependent variables yet to be isolated
before an age can be confidently from weathering analysis.
The tree was an aspen (_Populus_ species).
The roots were not said to be wrapped around the stone,
just in close contact with it.
It was found near the top of a rounded hill.
No river nearby.
Soil creep would have been a sufficient mechanism to push
it over, but frost heave would have been more effective.
Boulders are rare on the surface in that area unless
it has been disturbed by a plow.
-
Daryl Krupa
Alaca
1117494543.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Aspen (P. tremula) are not renowned for their great lifespan.
--
- Peter Alaca - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Irrespective of how you describe it, the roots were in contact with
the stone on three sides and had such a firm grip that they had to be
cut away with an axe.
The report to the Minnesota Historical Society by its Museaum
Committee said (p1):
"When the stone was found, its inscribed side was down, and
about six inches of soil covered it. A poplar or aspen tree
grew above it and spread its principal roots about it, running
into the ground on opposite sides. On being cut away the
stump carrying the roots lay adjacent for some weeks and was
seen and noted by several visitors."
>
> It was found near the top of a rounded hill.
> No river nearby.
> Soil creep would have been a sufficient mechanism to push
>it over, but frost heave would have been more effective.
> Boulders are rare on the surface in that area unless
>it has been disturbed by a plow.
>
>-
>Daryl Krupa
>
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
The Minnesota Historical Society report gave the _minimum_ likely age
for the KRS tree, based on ring counts from other similar trees. They
came up with a best estimate of 42 years.
" 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
II and IV, 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 rings; on b, 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 standard growth, illustrated by sections c and d, and on
which there are about as many growth rings as on the larger
sections a and b. If these sections a and b fairly represent the
size of the tree, and if it still had an annual growth
illustrated by c and d, which certainly were stunted trees, the
age of the tree was probably nearer fifty years than ten years. "
Eric Stevens
t(nospam)kavanagh
> >> Dylan Sung wrote:
> >> <snip>
<snip; I think I got the attribution right>
> >> The tree was an aspen (_Populus_ species).
> >> The roots were not said to be wrapped around the stone,
> >> just in close contact with it.
The roots were drawn (as well as one reproduce in ASCII):
tree
|___
stone| <-- roots over the top and down the side (but not
| under)
tk
Per Rønne
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 12:01:48 +0200, sp...@husumtoften.invalid (Per
> Rønne) wrote:
>
> >Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 30 May 2005 10:48:22 +0200, sp...@husumtoften.invalid (Per
> >> Rønne) wrote:
> >>
> >> >IEJ <Iejoh...@telia.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> that's not true. If you exclude the linguists the facts are accepted
> >> >> also by those who doesn't believe the runestone to be from 1362 but
> >> >> made between 1500 and 1700 AD.
> >> >
> >> >But most experts think the stone was made in the late 1800s ...
> >>
> >> How about a few names.
> >
> >Isn't necessary as long as encyclopædias agree on that.
>
> Then all you can say is 'most encyclopaedias'.
Encyclopædias tend to rely on expert opinion. I don't see anything more
valid in saying that the stone is older than the late 1800s than what
the Mormons use as "proofs" for the validity of Mormon's Book.
--
Per Erik Rønne
Philip Deitiker
news:1gxexp5.1pr1h211m18zwaN%sp...@husumtoften.invalid:
The mormons must be right, they allow men to have multiple wives.
[Or is that a good thing], no they must be wrong.
Philip Deitiker
> The Minnesota Historical Society report gave the _minimum_
> likely age for the KRS tree, based on ring counts from other
> similar trees. They came up with a best estimate of 42 years.
>
> " 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 II and IV, 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 rings; on b, 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 standard growth, illustrated by sections c and d,
> and on which there are about as many growth rings as on the
> larger sections a and b. If these sections a and b fairly
> represent the size of the tree, and if it still had an
> annual growth illustrated by c and d, which certainly were
> stunted trees, the age of the tree was probably nearer fifty
> years than ten years. "
The stone could have been placed aside the tree after it was several
years old, that would have given time for new roots to entangle the
stone.
Eric Stevens
The stone shows the trail of the acid(?) attack of the root tips as
they grew across the stone. Even if your scenario is correct, the tree
must have been very small when the stone was placed under it.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Rønne) wrote:
You will have to wait for the geotechnical evidence to be published.
Eric Stevens
Doug Weller
wrote:
Eric, you know there are conflicting reports, eg that Richard Nielsen has
suggested 30 years.
Also according to Michael
e.Zalar: "24. The only truly contemporary description in a letter from
Olaus Olson
to the Svenska Amerikanska Posted dated May 16 1899 (shortly after he
examined the stone), gives an age for the tree of 25 to 30 years. All
other descriptions came at least 8 years later <Blegen: 134-5>.
25. The Olson letter describes the root around the stone as large
<ibid.>."
But a later letter, written in 1910 by Cleve W Van Dyke (who led the
group who dug out the stone) to Newton Winchell, wrote that "As I
remember it, we judged the tree to be about twelve years old. The
smaller root seems to have been bent away under it and the larger, or
tap root, slightly flattened." Van Dyke only arrived at the site after
the tree had been cut down and the stone removed, so he never saw it in
place.
This is from my copy of Theodore C Blegen's book The Kensington Rune
Stone, page 171.
Philip Deitiker
5 years or so, and the variance on the report is 10 to 50, I am
predicting the stone was planted in 1862, when the tree was felled it
was 1898. The difference in age was 36 years, if the tree was 5 years
or so old it would have been 41. Close enough to 42 for you? The old
abercrombie fort road was being built for the fort in 1858 but was
moved to higher ground the next year. The trail is now a state
highway as it was never completely abandoned but in 1859 it was not
finished, and probably ended about 10 miles NW of where the KRS was
found. So I would think all one needs is a who and the fraud aspect
of the KRS could be settled. Alternatively is was planted in 1858
when the tree would have been 2 years old.
http://groups-
beta.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/browse_frm/thread/1bd24dcec634f
c0a/916514420afd905e?q=Old+abercrombie+trail&rnum=1#916514420afd905e
Note this was before the days of Ohman, and so any affect that the
Ohman family had on the unusual wear patterns would be an accomplice
(probably involunterily) after the fact. Like I said, the minnisota
historical society should have never relenquished the stone once they
examined it. At least they should have made cast of the stone for
later documentation.
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
____Groups_____
Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/
____Sites_____
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Seppo Renfors
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 02:30:32 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Per Rønne wrote:
> >>
> >> Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> > BTW a dictionary is not such a source.
> >>
> >> I didn't use a dictionary {ordbog} but encyclopedias {leksika,
> >> encyklopædier}.
> >
> >That too.
> >
> >These facts about the KRS I referred to earlier:
> >Fact: The stone was under a tree that had germinated and grown over
> >the stone.
> >Fact: That tree dated back to before any Europeans were in that
> >district.
> >Fact: The tree's age predates Ohman's arrival in the USA.
> >Fact: the runes were carved at least 100 years before the stone was
> >found.
> >
> >...but there is one other fact I forgot:
> >Fact: The stone itself is local to the area.
> >
>
> It depends what you mean by 'local'. There are other similar stones in
> the general area but they come from some distance away.
"Local" as in belonging to that area - as opposed to imported from
elsewhere.
Seppo Renfors
These are are indeed established facts, REAL facts - oh and the "True
Believers" are those who simply ignores these facts and invents others
to suit their "beliefs".
If you are so sure about the KRS being a fake, then you must also be
able to counter these facts with other studies done that renders them
erroneous and explain WHY they are erroneous. I invite you to supply
that proof.
Seppo Renfors
Doug Weller wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 10:07:13 GMT, in sci.archaeology, IEJ wrote:
>
> >
> >"Per Rønne" <sp...@husumtoften.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
> >news:1gxdfas.zg6x915y5a8N%sp...@husumtoften.invalid...
> >> IEJ <Iejoh...@telia.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > that's not true. If you exclude the linguists the facts are accepted
> >also by
> >> > those who doesn't believe the runestone to be from 1362 but made between
> >> > 1500 and 1700 AD.
> >>
> >> But most experts think the stone was made in the late 1800s ...
> >
> >Well that's not true either. Most linguists yes, definitly not a majority of
> >the scholars of geology, geochemi.
>
> Very very few geologists have looked at the stone, though.
...but those who have are in agreement that it is NOT a fake, while
linguists are split on the LANGUAGE issues - not the authenticity of
the stone as THEY cannot prove it genuine or otherwise!
It is totally BOGUS to suggest a LINGUIST can disprove the age of the
stone and how long it has been weathering - it doesn't matter if the
damn stone was written in swahili.
> There has been a distinct turn around
> >when it comes to scholars of History. some have spoken out that they changed
> >their earlier opinion, some has as Smitsonians said that future facts might
> >change the view
>
> Are you saying that the Smithsonian has actually made a recent statement
> on the KRS?
>
> and some especially here in Sweden say in private and among
> >their equal that they don't rule out KRS being true. So a majority isn't a
> >correct information presented. The figures aren't that clear at all after
> >Wolter's, Nielsen's and Kehoe's latest works. It's only in the mind of the
> >naysayers in this group and the linguists that their dream of such a
> >majority still exist. More than one encyclopedia has changed their
> >information the last two month, more are to do so.
>
> Name one.
What does it matter? An encyclopaedia isn't evidence of anything more
than the opinion of the author of it.
> >AND it's important to remember that truth doesn't call for a majority of
> >scholars to have made up their mind for the truth to be true....
> >
> Nope, which applies also to your tiny number of geologists.
...who are all in agreement - it is genuine!!
IEJ
"Daryl Krupa" <icyc...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:1117494543.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
a small stream and waterway/lake is marked on late 19th century maps close
to the swamp where the 'hight'/'earlier island' where KRS was found.(before
Ohman bought the land)
> Soil creep would have been a sufficient mechanism to push
> it over, but frost heave would have been more effective.
> Boulders are rare on the surface in that area unless
> it has been disturbed by a plow.
>
> -
> Daryl Krupa
Inger E
>
IEJ
expert opinion don't say that the opinion is correct. You know that don't
you.
It takes more than refering to present paradigm in a question to show that
you yourself studied/read what you can. Btw. is husumtoften close to
Prestetunet?
Inger E
"Per Rønne" <sp...@husumtoften.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
news:1gxexp5.1pr1h211m18zwaN%sp...@husumtoften.invalid...
Dylan Sung
"IEJ" <Iejoh...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:_gUme.138957$dP1.4...@newsc.telia.net...
>
> "Daryl Krupa" <icyc...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:1117494543.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> Dylan Sung wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > I'm wondering if lichens can be cleaned off. If the stone
>> > was erected after a mysterious attack by Scandinavians
>> > centuries ago, it would have been exposed to some form of
>> > weathering also. Like tombstones, they would attract
>> > lichens, and it would have eaten into the stone. As I
>> > understand it, it was buried, and wrapped with roots from
>> > some type of tree. Even is it had falled over a few years
>> > after it's erection, then one would expect to see
>> > weathering on the exposed area. One would ask how it became
>> > to come underground and burried. Was there a river nearby?
>> > Or was the place prone to annual rains and flooding?
>>
>> Dyl:
>> Lichens can be cleaned off, but evidence of their acid-
>> etching might remain.
It's the acid etching I was thinking of. But someone said, the roots from
the tree also had some acidic erosion on the surface too.
Besides, I wonder why the the Vikings, so soon after an attack (if the text
is to be believed), went to hew a stone slab, had the time to carve it, then
haul it up a hill. It doesn't make much sense, they really ought to have
been trying to find a secure area to defend themselves.
>>
>> The stone has been examined re: weathering; the first
>> estimate by Winchell gave its age as a certain fraction of
>> the time since it was last glacially scratched, but because
>> his estimate of age of last glacial movement in the area was
>> only about 1/2 of the real age, his estimate would have dated
>> the inscription to several centuries before the date in the
>> inscription, so that estimate is out the window.
>> Wolter's estimate was based on comparison with dated
>> tombstones of another sort of stone halfway across the
>> continent, on the east coast, and there is as yet no
>> confirmation that his analogical comparison is valid.
>> Besides that, the exposure and weathering history of
>> the KRS is unknown, which means that there are several
>> independent and dependent variables yet to be isolated
>> before an age can be confidently from weathering analysis.
>>
>> The tree was an aspen (_Populus_ species).
>> The roots were not said to be wrapped around the stone,
>> just in close contact with it.
>>
>> It was found near the top of a rounded hill.
>> No river nearby.
>
> a small stream and waterway/lake is marked on late 19th century maps close
> to the swamp where the 'hight'/'earlier island' where KRS was
> found.(before
> Ohman bought the land)
So you say "maps", what maps exactly, and how accurate are they?
Dyl.
Steve Marcus
Some questions:
What part of the above quote states that the roots *were in contact with the
stone* *on three sides* and had *such a firm grip* that they *had to be cut
away with an axe*???
Are you perhaps reading the above through the twin prisms of preconceived
beliefs and sloppy (or slanted) writings that have been produced by the
supporters of the stone's authenticity during the last hundred or so years?
Would you, in your work as a "foresnic engineer", accept what you have
quoted above as in any way being identical to what you wrote when you
described what you quoted.
Is English really your native tongue?
>>
>> It was found near the top of a rounded hill.
>> No river nearby.
>> Soil creep would have been a sufficient mechanism to push
>>it over, but frost heave would have been more effective.
>> Boulders are rare on the surface in that area unless
>>it has been disturbed by a plow.
>>
>>-
>>Daryl Krupa
>>
>
>
> 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
Steve Marcus
Will that be as a companion volume to a bound set of Inger's "soon to be
published" books?
Alaca
The story is absolute ridiculous, even if it
was posible that there was an already
prepared stone available.
One thing is sure: it is a real stone.
--
- Peter Alaca - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Per Rønne
> If you are so sure about the KRS being a fake, then you must also be
> able to counter these facts with other studies done that renders them
> erroneous and explain WHY they are erroneous. I invite you to supply
> that proof.
Being a MSc in computer science it is sufficient for me to know that the
text has been written in /modern/ Swedish, not in Old Norse {Old
Icelandic} which had been the language used by Icelanders and
Greenlanders of Nordic descent. And that the date written has been
written in a "modern" way.
Furthermore, it seems as if the stone has been handled in such a way
that a scientific {as opposed to a scholarly} research of it is
impossible. Quite convenient for possible fakers.
--
Per Erik Rønne
Per Rønne
> An encyclopaedia isn't evidence of anything more than the opinion of the
> author of it.
An encyclopædia hasn't got /one/ author. It has got thousands of authors
and each article had been proofread by other experts into the area the
individual article deals with.
--
Per Erik Rønne
Per Rønne
> Btw. is husumtoften close to Prestetunet?
I don't know what "Prestetunet" is. "Husumtoften" is the building I live
in, a building of user-owned flats in Husum, Copenhagen. Where the four
"communes" Copenhagen, Rødovre, Herlev and Gladsaxe "border". At present
I own the domain but it will be turned over to the owner's association
as soon as we get a common {and cheaper} internet connection.
--
Per Erik Rønne
IEJ
"Per Rønne" <sp...@husumtoften.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
> Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote:
>
> > If you are so sure about the KRS being a fake, then you must also be
> > able to counter these facts with other studies done that renders them
> > erroneous and explain WHY they are erroneous. I invite you to supply
> > that proof.
>
> Being a MSc in computer science it is sufficient for me to know that the
> text has been written in /modern/ Swedish, not in Old Norse {Old
> Icelandic} which had been the language used by Icelanders and
> Greenlanders of Nordic descent. And that the date written has been
> written in a "modern" way.
That's why I started to read History. I can't say that I haven't had an
advantage knowing how to write my own computerprograms to handle larger
input of data in flexible sized posts in databases. I write the data in an
indextabell using that as an input for the database when ever I add to that
one.
>
> Furthermore, it seems as if the stone has been handled in such a way
> that a scientific {as opposed to a scholarly} research of it is
> impossible. Quite convenient for possible fakers.
Not correct.
Inger E
> --
> Per Erik Rønne
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
Not only the 'who' is needed but the 'why' someone should cart 200
pounds of stone into what was almost an uncharted wilderness.
>
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/browse_frm/thread/1bd24dcec634fc0a/916514420afd905e?q=Old+abercrombie+trail&rnum=1#916514420afd905e
PLEASE learn to use TinyURL.
>
>Note this was before the days of Ohman, and so any affect that the
>Ohman family had on the unusual wear patterns would be an accomplice
>(probably involunterily) after the fact. Like I said, the minnisota
>historical society should have never relenquished the stone once they
>examined it. At least they should have made cast of the stone for
>later documentation.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
>suggested 30 years. Also according to Michaele.Zalar: "24. The only truly
>contemporary description in a letter from Olaus Olson
>to the Svenska Amerikanska Posted dated May 16 1899 (shortly after he
>examined the stone), gives an age for the tree of 25 to 30 years. All
>other descriptions came at least 8 years later <Blegen: 134-5>.
There are pros and cons for all of these. I didn't want to get bogged
down in that so I cited the most sound statement on the subject from
the general era.
>
>25. The Olson letter describes the root around the stone as large
><ibid.>."
>
>But a later letter, written in 1910 by Cleve W Van Dyke (who led the
>group who dug out the stone) to Newton Winchell, wrote that "As I
>remember it, we judged the tree to be about twelve years old. The
>smaller root seems to have been bent away under it and the larger, or
>tap root, slightly flattened." Van Dyke only arrived at the site after
>the tree had been cut down and the stone removed, so he never saw it in
>place.
What is this about leading the group 'who dug out the stone'? AFAIK
the group was Ohman and son.
>
>This is from my copy of Theodore C Blegen's book The Kensington Rune
>Stone, page 171.
>
Aah - you are talking about the Van Dyke who later led the group who
dug out the SITE of the KRS some years after it had been found by
Ohman. It is disappointing that if the stump still remained for Van
Dyke's examination, he did not have the wit to count the rings. Also,
he came from about 20 miles away (that's why he was late) and would
have been unfamiliar with the rate of growth of the local trees.
Eric Stevens
Philip Deitiker
It was not uncharted, it was 1 mile off a known trail, that is now a
state highway, and it was frequented by oxcarters who would travel
off the regular road as grasses to feed their oxens diminshed.
The year is 1860. The civil war, trains, 'go west young man'. The
texas/mexico war was 24 years previous, the mexican/american war 12
years previous, the gold rush in california 1849. People were moving
west at that time. Uncharted would be northern canada, parts of the
desert southwest. the pemberton trail that connected with the
mainroute to St. Paul overlay some of the french portages used to
transport furs for over 150 years. What it was is unsettled, all the
more easy to drop a stone where no-one is looking.
Why drop a stone George has some interesting theories.
>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/browse_frm/th
>>read/1bd24dcec634fc0a/916514420afd905e?q=Old+abercrombie+trail&rn
>>um=1#916514420afd905e
google sci.archaeology with Old abercrombie trail.
>>Note this was before the days of Ohman, and so any affect that
>>the Ohman family had on the unusual wear patterns would be an
>>accomplice (probably involunterily) after the fact. Like I said,
>>the minnisota historical society should have never relenquished
>>the stone once they examined it. At least they should have made
>>cast of the stone for later documentation.
--
Eric Stevens
A possibly more tenable explanation is given by Thomas E. Reiersgord
in 'The Kensington Rune Stone - It's place in history'. He has it
being carved in the Knife Lake area and carried by the native
americans to where it was eventually found. He believes it may even
have been seen on its journey by the 18th century explorer Jonathan
Carver some time before 1778 when he published a book describing his
journey.
Eric Stevens
Alaca
> "Alaca" wrote:
>> Dylan Sung wrote:
>>> It's the acid etching I was thinking of. But someone said, the roots
>>> from the tree also had some acidic erosion on the surface too.
>>> [...]
>>> Besides, I wonder why the the Vikings, so soon after an attack (if
>>> the text is to be believed), went to hew a stone slab, had the time
>>> to carve it, then haul it up a hill. It doesn't make much sense,
>>> they really ought to have been trying to find a secure area to
>>> defend themselves.
>>
>> The story is absolute ridiculous, even if it
>> was posible that there was an already
>> prepared stone available.
>> One thing is sure: it is a real stone.
>
> A possibly more tenable explanation is given by Thomas E. Reiersgord
> in 'The Kensington Rune Stone - It's place in history'. He has it
> being carved in the Knife Lake area and carried by the native
> americans to where it was eventually found. He believes it may even
> have been seen on its journey by the 18th century explorer Jonathan
> Carver some time before 1778 when he published a book describing his
> journey.
Where is was found makes no difference for the story.
Inscribing a stone with runes while you are on the run
in the wildernis is crazy, cutting a stone in that shape
first is insane. And for what purpose? Imagin!
And the tree adds nothing to the credebility.
Eric Stevens
Hmm - http://tinyurl.com/bh8os
Anything else seems to point to WA and the west coast.
Apart from that, the country around Kensington seems to have been
riddled with swamps, streams and lakes and it seems unlikely that
anyone could take an oxcart very far off the trail at all. Even if
they could, it still doesn't deal with the question of who and why.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Apparently the stone was already in much that shape to begin with. The
motives for the message is a complete mystery and in any case we do
not actually know that it was carved on the run. The tree seems to
have existed, irrespective of anything it may or may not do for the
credibility of the KRS.
Eric Stevens
Tom McDonald
IEJ wrote:
> "Per Rønne" <sp...@husumtoften.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
> news:1gxexp5.1pr1h211m18zwaN%sp...@husumtoften.invalid...
>
>>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 May 2005 12:01:48 +0200, sp...@husumtoften.invalid (Per
>>>Rønne) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 30 May 2005 10:48:22 +0200, sp...@husumtoften.invalid (Per
>>>>>Rønne) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>IEJ <Iejoh...@telia.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>that's not true. If you exclude the linguists the facts are
>
> accepted
>
>>>>>>>also by those who doesn't believe the runestone to be from 1362
>
> but
>
>>>>>>>made between 1500 and 1700 AD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But most experts think the stone was made in the late 1800s ...
>>>>>
>>>>>How about a few names.
>>>>
>>>>Isn't necessary as long as encyclopædias agree on that.
>>>
>>>Then all you can say is 'most encyclopaedias'.
>>
>>Encyclopædias tend to rely on expert opinion. I don't see anything more
>>valid in saying that the stone is older than the late 1800s than what
>>the Mormons use as "proofs" for the validity of Mormon's Book.
>>--
>>Per Erik Rønne
> Per,
> expert opinion don't say that the opinion is correct. You know that don't
> you.
> It takes more than refering to present paradigm in a question to show that
> you yourself studied/read what you can. Btw. is husumtoften close to
> Prestetunet?
This is interesting. The Mrs. has been touting purported
forthcoming changes in encyclopedias as evidence that her beloved
(and probably misconstrued) 'paradigm shift' is occurring. Now,
not only encyclopedias, but the experts they rely on, are
fallible, and therefore one need not pay them any attention.
One could get whiplash, reading her stuff.
The Mrs. wrote today that Wolter and Nielsen are holding up
their book due to the great amount of "proof" currently coming in
on the side of the authenticity of the KRS. "Proof." Not evidence
but PROOF! I guess these worthies are not the sad, sorry experts
who give opinions in other venues. These worthies are above that
sort of thing. They are revealing the Truth (tm).
One may laugh, in order not to cry.
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
Tom McDonald
Seppo, mo run, ma cherie,
The greywache erratics were 'imported' by the glaciers of the
last advance of the Wisconsinin glaciation. Do you suggest that
the glaciers worked to order, bringing greywacke from its source
near Lake Superior directly, and only, to Kensington?
Philip Deitiker
news:mh8ne.18156$bD5....@fe07.lga:
> The greywache erratics were 'imported' by the glaciers of
> the
> last advance of the Wisconsinin glaciation. Do you suggest that
> the glaciers worked to order, bringing greywacke from its source
> near Lake Superior directly, and only, to Kensington?
Actually I had a similar question, what is the frequency of greywacke
slabs in the Runestone hill area. If you can't find a density of
slabs there then it is possible it had to be carried from elsewhere.
Then the Ohman issue becomes moot.
Eric Stevens
I understand similar greywacke is found in the general area but it's
home is probably several hundred miles to the NE.
Eric Stevens