Daryl Krupa: Geology Question (KRS related)
Steve Marcus
I'm starting, slowly and carefully, to read the Wolter/Nielsen book, but
I'll admit up front that the reading is being done by sedated eyes since I'm
recovering at home from surgery.
What I've learned, so far, about the geology of the dating method employed
is that a weathering comparison was used to date the inscription by
comparing the KRS (which is greywacke, a meta-sedimentary rock bearing these
micas: biotite, chlorite and muscovite) with three slate (a metamorphic
rock) tombstones from Augusta Maine that were selected from a much larger
number of tombstones because the mica grain size in samples of those three
tombstones was comparable to the grain size of the KRS micas. The authors
only discuss biotite, leading me to believe that the tombstones did not have
the other KRS micas.
The tentative dating for the KRS is "older than 200 years" because all of
the mica minerals on the "man-made surfaces" of the KRS have weathered away
(it's not present in either the inscription or the surfaces bearing the
inscription), while the biotite on the tombstones (average age 194 + or - 5
years) is still present, although it is severly weathered. It is noted that
the tombstones are from a geographical area stated in the text to average 17
inches of rain per year more than falls in Kensington (although tabular data
in the book states that the average is 17 inches of *precipitation*, and
although it is stated that both above and below grade samples should have
been compared, only above-grade samples were collected from the tombstones
because the ground was frozen and covered with a foot of snow.
Leaving aside the issue of differences in average temperatures between
Augusta ME and Kensington, MN, as well as acid rain issues, I'm wondering
whether the comparison made by the authors is geologically sound in the
sense of comparing apples to apples. I don't know enough geology to know
whether the fact that the two rocks are of different types, and the micas on
the two different types of rocks also being different different (the rocks
are reported as having only biotite in common) amounts to comparing apples
to bananas. Any light you could shed on these points would be appreciated.
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
Daryl Krupa
<snip>
> What I've learned, so far, about
> the geology of the dating method employed
> is that a weathering comparison was used to date the inscription
> by comparing the KRS (which is
> greywacke, a meta-sedimentary rock
Steve:
Just a point of clarification:
graywacke (American spelling) is a sedimentary rock;
metagraywacke is a metamorphic rock,
which could be called meta-sedimentary.
The KRS is best described as metagraywacke,
in that it is graywacke that shows signs of
having undergone metamorphosis
(i.e., changes resulting from heating, pressing,
and crystal growth and substitution, etc.).
What does Wolter call it?
> bearing these micas: biotite, chlorite and muscovite)
Chlorite is a flat sheet silicate, like the micas,
but it is not generally called a mica, though some would see it as
related. From:
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/personal/groat/claymanual.htm
"Chlorite may be seen as a regular alternation of mica and brucite
layers."
Also:
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=mica
See Table I here:
http://www.minsocam.org/msa/collectors_corner/arc/nomenclaturecl1.htm
Also useful:
http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/class.htm#phyllo
See also this description of the metamorphic
origins of mica and chlorite:
http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/Fichter/MetaRx/Metatexture.html
Does Wolter say that chlorite is a type of mica?
> with three slate (a metamorphic rock) tombstones
> from Augusta Maine
> that were selected from a much larger number of tombstones
> because the mica grain size in samples of those three tombstones
> was comparable to the grain size of the KRS micas.
> The authors only discuss biotite,
> leading me to believe that the tombstones
> did not have the other KRS micas.
I wouldn't go that far. Absent a detailed description
of the Augusta tombstones, we don't know that.
Did Wolter say which formation the tombstone slate
was quarried from?
Yet the specific type of biotite was not given.
I am not a petrology or mineralogy wizard, but
I have seen descriptions of a single rock type
with four phases of biotite, with different chemical
makeup in each.
The longer a rock is metamorphosed,
the more the biotite that it contains changes;
e.g., garnet can grow at the expense of biotite.
I have also seen analyses of biotite weathering that distinguished
between different types.
This might be a case of comparing apples and
oranges, WRT weathering characteristics of biotite.
> The tentative dating for the KRS is
> "older than 200 years" because
> all of the mica minerals on
> the "man-made surfaces" of the KRS
> have weathered away
> (it's not present in either the inscription or
> the surfaces bearing the inscription),
> while the biotite on the tombstones
> (average age 194 + or - 5 years)
Hmmm? I had thought that that was
about the age of the oldest tombstone sampled.
> is still present,
> although it is severly weathered.
If the weathering characteristics of the biotites
in the Augusta tombstones and the KRS were similar,
then that 200-year-plus age estimate might be
a fair assumption.
But it is as yet only an assumption, as
the congruency of the two materials' weathering
characteristics has not been proven.
> It is noted that the tombstones are from
> a geographical area stated in the text to
> average 17 inches of rain per year more than
> falls in Kensington (although tabular data
> in the book states that the average is
> 17 inches of *precipitation*,
A minor flaw, perhaps resulting from
an assumption that precipitation in Maine
is mainly plain rain.
> and although it is stated that both above and
> below grade samples should have been compared,
> only above-grade samples were collected from
> the tombstones because the ground was frozen
> and covered with a foot of snow.
If we knew the burial history of the KRS, and
how long any one side had buried, under what
conditions, and for what amount of time, that
might be a significant problem.
But we don't, so I am content to limit the
discussion to sub-aerial weathering (i.e.,
that which comes about during exposure to weather).
> Leaving aside the issue of differences in
> average temperatures between Augusta ME and
> Kensington, MN, as well as acid rain issues,
> I'm wondering whether the comparison made by
> the authors is geologically sound in the
> sense of comparing apples to apples.
> I don't know enough geology to know whether
> the fact that the two rocks are of different
> types, and the micas on the two different types
> of rocks also being different different
> (the rocks are reported as having only biotite
> in common) amounts to comparing apples to bananas.
I would be surprised to find that the only common
mica between the KRS and the Augusta tombstone slate
was biotite.
A mention of the tombstones' parent formation
would have been useful in that regard, or even
the location of the quarry or quarries that
supplied the cemetary.
From an ancient tome on American slate quarrying,
WRT Maine slate:
1906
Slate Deposits and Slate Industry of the United States
http://www.cagenweb.com/quarries/states/me-slate_1906.html
"
The constituents of this slate, arranged in
the order of their decreasing abundance,
appear to be muscovite (sericite), quartz,
chlorite, biotite, pyrite, carbonaceous or
graphitic matter, magnetite, rutile, and apatite.
"
Two types of mica there,
the most important constituent of the rock (i.e.,
the matrix that the other minerals occur within)
being
the mica known as muscovite.
Similarly from 1914:
Excerpts From
Slate in The United States
http://www.cagenweb.com/quarries/states/me-slate_1914.html
That Maine slate seems to be made mainly of
another type of mica than biotite seems
to have been known for a century. Or more.
> Any light you could shed on these points
> would be appreciated.
Hoping that this has been a start on answering,
Daryl Krupa
Peter Alaca
1138600323....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com,
> Steve Marcus wrote:
[...]
>> It is noted that the tombstones are from
>> a geographical area stated in the text to
>> average 17 inches of rain per year more than
>> falls in Kensington (although tabular data
>> in the book states that the average is
>> 17 inches of *precipitation*,
> A minor flaw, perhaps resulting from
> an assumption that precipitation in Maine
> is mainly plain rain.
[...]
Wrong assumption.
And the 17 inches is not a minor flaw.
Moreover, there is a huge difference
in anual precipitation between Kensington
(Alexandria) and Augusta.
*Minnesota*
The average annual precipitation (rainfall plus the
water equivalent found in snowfall) in Minnesota
ranges from nearly 18 inches in the far northwest
to more than 32 inches in the southeast.
map: http://tinyurl.com/2pfaf
(Visual assesment for Kensington 22-26 inches)
Alexandria, Minnesota (near Kensington)
Annual Precipitation 26.02 "
http://tinyurl.com/9dugn
The average annual snowfall in Minnesota varies
from 36 inches in the southwest to more than 70
inches along the Lake Superior "snow belt."
Although snow is an important component of
Minnesota's hydrology, the water found in the
snow comprises less than 20 percent of the total
precipitation received annually
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/faqs.html
The average annual precipitation is 28.32 inches,
with a snowfall figure of 49.6 inches.
http://tinyurl.com/day4v
*Maine*
Annual precipitation averages near 45 inches,
with higher amounts along the Atlantic Ocean
coastline, and the upper reaches of the
mountains.
http://tinyurl.com/brutq
Map: http://tinyurl.com/7owj9
Augusta Maine
Average annual precipitation: 42-43 inches
http://tinyurl.com/dyrb7
Annual snowfall 80 inches
http://tinyurl.com/dmbcy
In short: an anual precipitation not of 17 inches,
but c. 26 in Alexandria and 42 in Augusta.
--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°
Alan Crozier
news:43ddf686$0$297$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
In Steve's summary it sounds ambiguous, but the 17 inches of
precipitation still refers to the *difference* between
Alexandria and Augusta (Wolter's "17 inches more rainfall
annually", figures based on 24.1 and 41.1 respectively). Your
figures show a difference of 16 inches, which is pretty close to
17.
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Steve Marcus
"Daryl Krupa" <icyc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138600323....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Steve Marcus wrote:
> <snip>
>> What I've learned, so far, about
>> the geology of the dating method employed
>> is that a weathering comparison was used to date the inscription
>> by comparing the KRS (which is
>> greywacke, a meta-sedimentary rock
>
> Steve:
> Just a point of clarification:
> graywacke (American spelling) is a sedimentary rock;
> metagraywacke is a metamorphic rock,
> which could be called meta-sedimentary.
Which is why I asked you for help. I couldn't tell whether the name
metagraywacke implied that the rock was sedimentary graywacke produced by
metamorphism, as slate is produced from shale.
> The KRS is best described as metagraywacke,
> in that it is graywacke that shows signs of
> having undergone metamorphosis
> (i.e., changes resulting from heating, pressing,
> and crystal growth and substitution, etc.).
> What does Wolter call it?
Metagraywacke.
>
>> bearing these micas: biotite, chlorite and muscovite)
>
> Chlorite is a flat sheet silicate, like the micas,
> but it is not generally called a mica, though some would see it as
> related. From:
>
> http://www.eos.ubc.ca/personal/groat/claymanual.htm
I was working from this site, which gives "the most common" micas, and does
not list chlorite (but, of course, does not exclude chlorite as a member of
the mica grouping):
http://www.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/micas.htm
lass.htm#phyllo
>
> See also this description of the metamorphic
> origins of mica and chlorite:
>
> http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/Fichter/MetaRx/Metatexture.html
>
> Does Wolter say that chlorite is a type of mica?
Nielsen and Wolter's book, at page 34, discusses the mineralogy of the KRS
and states: "The elongated grains exhibit a preferred orientation that is
sub-parallel (nearly parallel) with the foliation composed of various mica
minerals (muscovite, chlorite and biotite) that comprise the matrix."
>
>> with three slate (a metamorphic rock) tombstones
>> from Augusta Maine
>> that were selected from a much larger number of tombstones
>> because the mica grain size in samples of those three tombstones
>> was comparable to the grain size of the KRS micas.
>> The authors only discuss biotite,
>> leading me to believe that the tombstones
>> did not have the other KRS micas.
>
> I wouldn't go that far. Absent a detailed description
> of the Augusta tombstones, we don't know that.
>
> Did Wolter say which formation the tombstone slate
> was quarried from?
Not that I've been able to see in the material that I've read so far. (I've
reached the end of the "tombstone comparison" material, but that doesn't
mean that more info re the tombstones won't crop up later in the book.) The
tombstones were from Hallowell Cemetary in Hallowell, ME.
Another tidbit: Nielsen/Wolter include a photo of lichens from one of the
tombstones (although it isn't stated whether it is from one of the three
tombstones from which samples were used to date the KRS). They state that
acid produced by these lichens would "accelerate the weathering rate of
biotite mica." (page 44, and Fig. 51 on page 46). No comment is made
regarding the possibility that given the similar climates of Augusta, ME
(evidently as close as to Hallowell, ME as they could gather data for) and
Kensington, whether it would have been likely that lichen would have grown
on the KRS (obviously any such material would have been removed in the
various cleanings that the stone received subsequent to its discovery).
>
> Yet the specific type of biotite was not given.
> I am not a petrology or mineralogy wizard, but
> I have seen descriptions of a single rock type
> with four phases of biotite, with different chemical
> makeup in each.
> The longer a rock is metamorphosed,
> the more the biotite that it contains changes;
> e.g., garnet can grow at the expense of biotite.
> I have also seen analyses of biotite weathering that distinguished
> between different types.
> This might be a case of comparing apples and
> oranges, WRT weathering characteristics of biotite.
>
>> The tentative dating for the KRS is
>> "older than 200 years" because
>> all of the mica minerals on
>> the "man-made surfaces" of the KRS
>> have weathered away
>> (it's not present in either the inscription or
>> the surfaces bearing the inscription),
>> while the biotite on the tombstones
>> (average age 194 + or - 5 years)
>
> Hmmm? I had thought that that was
> about the age of the oldest tombstone sampled.
"The average age of weathering of the three samples was 194 years, plus or
minus 5 years." The three sample tombstones had "death dates" of 1806, 1805
and 1815, yielding 197 years, 198 years, and 188 years of weathering in
2003.
>
>> is still present,
>> although it is severly weathered.
>
> If the weathering characteristics of the biotites
> in the Augusta tombstones and the KRS were similar,
> then that 200-year-plus age estimate might be
> a fair assumption.
> But it is as yet only an assumption, as
> the congruency of the two materials' weathering
> characteristics has not been proven.
Or, at least, haven't been stated by Nielsen/Wolter. I figured as much;
quite possibly, an apples/bananas comparison, all tricked out with some "8 x
10 color glossy photos", to borrow a nicely turned phrase from Arlo Guthrie.
>
>> It is noted that the tombstones are from
>> a geographical area stated in the text to
>> average 17 inches of rain per year more than
>> falls in Kensington (although tabular data
>> in the book states that the average is
>> 17 inches of *precipitation*,
>
> A minor flaw, perhaps resulting from
> an assumption that precipitation in Maine
> is mainly plain rain.
You would have thought that; I certainly did, until the authors noted that
they hadn't obtained any below ground samples from the tombstones because
the ground was frozen and covered in a foot of snow.
Daryl, your time and your expertise are greatly appreciated. I'm trying to
approach the Nielsen/Wolter book objectively, looking for evidence that
solidly supports the logic of the authors and their conclusion. So far,
through about 60 pages, I haven't found a great deal of solid logic. Your
input seems to be that their "tombstone evidence" may be nothing more than
suggestive, but inconclusive.
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" wrote
Oops. You are right, I missed that "more"
and didn't expect "tabular data ... average
is 17 inches" related to a difference.
Therefore I thought 17 inches for both
Kensington and Augusta was meant.
But my (implicit) question remains.
Has a difference of 17 inches influence
on the weathering? Or is that compensated
by the difference in snowfall? (c. twice as
much in Augusta)
A rough correction (10% water content)
reveals still c. 12" (300 mm) more precipitation
other then snow in Augusta.
--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°
.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
OK, so you are arguing that Hallowel receives 16" more rain that
Kensington while the book states 17". Should we bust a gut arguing
over that small difference? (Experience says yes we will :-). Either
way, as the book says, the increased rainfall at Hallowel "would tend
to increase the weathering rate".
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
--- snip ---
>Daryl, your time and your expertise are greatly appreciated. I'm trying to
>approach the Nielsen/Wolter book objectively, looking for evidence that
>solidly supports the logic of the authors and their conclusion. So far,
>through about 60 pages, I haven't found a great deal of solid logic. Your
>input seems to be that their "tombstone evidence" may be nothing more than
>suggestive, but inconclusive.
Steve, would you as a lawyer expect a judge to place much weight on
the opinion of an expert who had not actually read the evidence? Would
you even call such an expert to give evidence?
Daryl, no disrespect, but you have not read the book, you have not
seen the figures, and you continue to work blindly in a sea of
speculation.
Eric Stevens
Alan Crozier
news:8eqst1lbtmoo6i8tq...@4ax.com...
Peter has already admitted his misunderstanding when I pointed
it out to him.
Please try to stay awake at the back. ;-)
Steve Marcus
The issue originally raised was whether precipitation included snowfall, and
if not, how did the two areas stack up in terms of rainfall. I rasied the
question because the book states that there's a 17" difference in rainfall,
while also stating that there is a 17" difference in precipation and at the
same time maintaining an abject silence regarding snowfall.
Obviously, no conclusion on the merits of the book is possible after only
having read only 50 some odd pages, but I can tell you that the authors are
amazingly sloppy in terms of logic, and in terms of scientific rigor in
stating facts and reporting data.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:14:55 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> --- snip ---
>
>>Daryl, your time and your expertise are greatly appreciated. I'm trying
>>to
>>approach the Nielsen/Wolter book objectively, looking for evidence that
>>solidly supports the logic of the authors and their conclusion. So far,
>>through about 60 pages, I haven't found a great deal of solid logic. Your
>>input seems to be that their "tombstone evidence" may be nothing more than
>>suggestive, but inconclusive.
>
> Steve, would you as a lawyer expect a judge to place much weight on
> the opinion of an expert who had not actually read the evidence?
Eric, as a lawyer, I would certainly expect to place expert testimony before
a judge. Obviously, the expert testifying would have had full access to all
of the facts adduced, and would be applying his expertise to those facts and
the conclusions reached.
However, I am not conducting a trial. I am simply trying to analyze the
logic, methodology, data, and conclusions presented by Nielsen/Wolter. As
I'm no expert in geology, I posed a question to someone who is. I didn't
ask him for conclusions re the book, I asked him for an explanation of
terminology that I had read, and whether or not certain methodology and data
seemed sufficient to support certain conclusions that were presented.
For example, as someone who can understand what I read and actually think
logically about it, I have questions regarding whether a slate rock bearing
a single mica (biotite) (and here I note that I am only going by what Wolter
states and doesn't state about those three Maine tombstones) can reasonably
serve as a weathering benchmark for purposes of analyzing a graywacke (that
is, other than a slate) rock that is stated to have at least three mica
minerals (including biotite) on it. I am also curious about the presence or
absence of the other two micas on the KRS (have they weathered away too),
and what that data might or might not tell about the date. Not being a
geologist, I asked one to educate me a bit.
> Would
> you even call such an expert to give evidence?
Answered above. Of course not. But I didn't call Daryl to give evidence, I
called him to fill in some knowledge gaps. I'm perfectly capable of
interpreting the evidence and the logic behind conclusions drawn therefrom
once I understand the meaning of the evidence. I don't have to convince a
judge here, only myself.
>
> Daryl, no disrespect, but you have not read the book, you have not
> seen the figures, and you continue to work blindly in a sea of
> speculation.
Nothing in Daryl's post was speculative. For example, I queried him about
comparing a slate tombstone and the biotite mica remaining on it to a
graywacke rock said to have biotite, muscovite and chlorite micas, with the
the biotite being absent from the exposed surfaces. He responded by telling
me that chlorite isn't typically even called a mica. He also told me (quite
accurately, albeit gratuitously because I already knew this myself from
having read the book), that the authors are silent regarding the presence or
absence of chlorite and muscovite on the slate tombstones but that doesn't
mean that these micas weren't (or shouldn't or couldn't have been) present
on the tombstones; that's why I asked Daryl the question in the first place.
Daryl's commented that without knowing where the slate was quarried, it
would be difficult to know what one might expect to find on it in the way of
micas.
Daryl also pointed out that there are four types of biotite, something that
I know has not been addressed by the authors in the portion regarding the
age comparison to the Maine tombstones. Daryl also states that the use of
biotite to date the KRS might or might not be accurate depending on whether
the same as or similar to the biotite is on both the tombstones and the KRS.
Neither comment is speculation regarding the work of the authors; both
comments are factual. Daryl's comment that one really needs to know the
type of slate and the type of biotite(s) found on the slate tombstones is
something that I also figured out for myself (logic, and all that jazz).
Again, no speculation was required by Daryl, it's siple logic. That nothing
regarding this sort of info is provided by the authors within the first 50
or so pages, which is where one finds the comparative dating data and
conclusions, seems important to me. How about to you?
Nielsen/Wolter may well be right on a majority of what they state in the
book. However, so far I haven't seen anything that would enable a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant field (geology) to ascertain whether Wolter's
comparative dating is, or isn't accurate since it isn't clear that it was
obtained by comparing apples to apples. And Daryl doesn't need to read the
book to answer questions from someone who has read the book.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<name1...@telia.com> wrote:
>> OK, so you are arguing that Hallowel receives 16" more rain
>that
>> Kensington while the book states 17". Should we bust a gut
>arguing
>> over that small difference? (Experience says yes we will :-).
>Either
>> way, as the book says, the increased rainfall at Hallowel
>"would tend
>> to increase the weathering rate".
>
>Peter has already admitted his misunderstanding when I pointed
>it out to him.
>
>Please try to stay awake at the back. ;-)
Do you want a lecture on the propagation speed of news groups? :-)
His article and mine crossed somewhere about Mauritius.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>> Daryl Krupa wrote:
???
I don't repeat my last sentence.
Read it again and try to understand.
> Should we bust a gut arguing
> over that small difference? (Experience says yes we will :-).
Go ahead if you like, but not with me.
> Either way, as the book says, the increased rainfall at
> Hallowel "would tend to increase the weathering rate".
Just to be sure: Do you understand
that Alexandria is close to Kensington,
and Hallowell close to Augusta?
Peter Alaca
You mean you posted your reply more then 6 hours ago?
Me: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:21:45 +0100 (= 14.21 GMT +1)
You: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:37:02 +1300 (= 20.37 GMT +1)
But I think that you, as usual, simply reacted
on the first post you saw, without looking
further then your nose is long
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: al2tt1tbrdpi1l7lt...@4ax.com,
Peter,
Do you think all articles appear simultaneously on all news servers
ate the instant they are posted? Email is one thing but news groups
are quite another. Don't forget you and I are on almost opposite sides
of the globe.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: 8eqst1lbtmoo6i8tq...@4ax.com,
Of course - but ?????
Eric Stevens
Daryl Krupa
> "Daryl Krupa" <icyc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1138600323....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Steve Marcus wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> What I've learned, so far, about
> >> the geology of the dating method employed
> >> is that a weathering comparison was used to date the inscription
> >> by comparing the KRS (which is
> >> greywacke, a meta-sedimentary rock
> >
> > Steve:
> > Just a point of clarification:
> > graywacke (American spelling) is a sedimentary rock;
> > metagraywacke is a metamorphic rock,
> > which could be called meta-sedimentary.
>
> Which is why I asked you for help. I couldn't tell whether the name
> metagraywacke implied that the rock was sedimentary graywacke produced by
> metamorphism, as slate is produced from shale.
Steve:
Just to be perfectly clear, yes, "metagraywacke" implies that
the rock was sedimentary graywacke
produced by metamorphism,
much
as slate is produced from shale.
> > The KRS is best described as metagraywacke,
> > in that it is graywacke that shows signs of
> > having undergone metamorphosis
> > (i.e., changes resulting from heating, pressing,
> > and crystal growth and substitution, etc.).
> > What does Wolter call it?
>
> Metagraywacke.
> >
> >> bearing these micas: biotite, chlorite and muscovite)
> >
> > Chlorite is a flat sheet silicate, like the micas,
> > but it is not generally called a mica, though some would see it as
> > related. From:
> >
> > http://www.eos.ubc.ca/personal/groat/claymanual.htm
>
> I was working from this site, which gives "the most common"
> micas, and does not list chlorite (but, of course, does not
> exclude chlorite as a member of the mica grouping):
>
> http://www.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/micas.htm
If you go to another page associated with that site, you will
see that they have a separate "chlorite group", which they
put under a larger "clay group", which they put at the same
classification level as a "mica group"; thus, they do indeed
exclude chlorite as a member of the mica grouping:
http://www.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/phyllosi.htm
> lass.htm#phyllo
I do not know what this fragment is intended to denote.
> > See also this description of the metamorphic
> > origins of mica and chlorite:
> >
> > http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/Fichter/MetaRx/Metatexture.html
> >
> > Does Wolter say that chlorite is a type of mica?
>
> Nielsen and Wolter's book, at page 34, discusses
> the mineralogy of the KRS and states:
> "The elongated grains
> exhibit a preferred orientation
> that is sub-parallel (nearly parallel) with
> the foliation
> composed of various mica minerals (muscovite, chlorite and biotite)
> that comprise the matrix."
Aaarrgghh. How are we supposed to parse this sentence?
I can't tell what is supposed to be composed of mica.
It's not the foliation, because that is
a physical property of the rock indicating
a significant direction of stress on the rock during metamorphosis.
It's not the preferred orientation, because that is also
a physical property of the rock, also indicating
a significant direction of stress on the rock during metamorphosis.
It might be the elongated grains, but then we have to guess at
what words are missing to connect
"The elongated grains" to
"composed of various mica minerals".
Of course, I assume that there is a connection, rather than
that the writing above should actually have been printed as
two separate sentences.
As quoted above, the sentence is unclear as to its meaning.
This would be an example of a style of writing that
is not indicative of scientific thought processes;
it also does not qualify for technical writing standards.
Did you quote the book word-for-word, i.e. verbatim, above?
If so, that quotation might be evidence that Wolter's writing
has not been submitted to other geologically-minded types
for commentary, review, or analysis.
Alternatively, it's just evidence of sloppiness.
> >> with three slate (a metamorphic rock) tombstones
> >> from Augusta Maine
> >> that were selected from a much larger number of tombstones
> >> because the mica grain size in samples of those three tombstones
> >> was comparable to the grain size of the KRS micas.
> >> The authors only discuss biotite,
> >> leading me to believe that the tombstones
> >> did not have the other KRS micas.
> >
> > I wouldn't go that far. Absent a detailed description
> > of the Augusta tombstones, we don't know that.
> >
> > Did Wolter say which formation the tombstone slate
> > was quarried from?
>
> Not that I've been able to see in the material that I've read so far.
> (I've reached the end of the "tombstone comparison" material,
> but that doesn't mean that more info re the tombstones won't
> crop up later in the book.)
> The tombstones were from Hallowell Cemetary in Hallowell, ME.
According to the City of Hallowell, Maine, it is called something
similar, but yet different: the
Hallowell Calvary Cemetery (note the lack of an "a" in "cemetery):
That is, of course, south of Augusta, Maine, proper,
(which originated as the upper and middle parts of Hallowell),
but still within the Augusta Metropolitan area:
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=114202
OR
> Another tidbit: Nielsen/Wolter include
> a photo of lichens from one of the tombstones
> (although it isn't stated whether it is from one of the three
> tombstones from which samples were used to date the KRS).
> They state that acid produced by these lichens would
> "accelerate the weathering rate of biotite mica."
> (page 44, and Fig. 51 on page 46).
> No comment is made regarding the possibility that
> given the similar climates of Augusta, ME
> (evidently as close as to Hallowell, ME as they could gather data for)
> and Kensington, whether it would have been likely that
> lichen would have grown on the KRS
> (obviously any such material would have been removed in the various
> cleanings that the stone received subsequent to its discovery).
That might well be true, about acid prodiced by
such lichen(s) accelerating biotite weathering,
but as you mention above,
it is not clear whether or not such lichen actually
colonised one of the tombstones they sampled,
and so it is not clear whether or not
acid produced by such lichen(s) ever had
an opportunity to accelerate the weathering rate of biotite
in the sampled tombstones.
But that might be considered to be a moot point;
there are several factors which might tend to
cause biotite weathering to have proceeded at
a faster rate in the Maine tombstones than in the KRS.
Any or all of these factors might indicate that
whatever biotite weathering is seen in the Maine tombstones
took less time to accomplish than
an equivalent appearance of biotite weathering in the KRS.
That would indicate that
whatever biotite weathering is seen in the KRS
took longer to accomplish than
the equivalent amount of weathering in the Maine tombstones,
and so
Maine tombstone weathering-rate observations give
minimal ages for equivalent weathering on the KRS.
I.e., Maine tombstones are younger than they look,
so the KRS is older than it looks.
Fine. That would mean that the KRS stood out in the open,
exposed to weather, for longer than
those sampled Maine tombstones have stood out in the weather.
But that is just an educated guess. It is not a proven fact.
Weathering of KRS biotite might have proceeded more rapidly
than weathering of Hellowell Calvary Cemetery tombstone biotite
(as you mention above, possibly by the action of
acid produced by lichen).
Weathering of Hellowell Calvary Cemetery tombstone biotite
might be unusually slow.
And, of course, Wolter's Maine-tombstone-to-KRS comparison
depends upon a fundamental assumption, that
the KRS has not experienced any factors which might
"accelerate the weathering rate of biotite mica".
In suggesting that weathering rate of the Maine tombstone biotite
might have been accelerated, Wolter is treating the KRS
as if it were the control sample in the comparison
(which is not the way to do the comparison),
or,
he is implicitly acknowledging that
Maine tombstones should not be considered to be reliable
control samples regarding the rate of biotite weathering,
until more is known about rates of biotite weathering and
the various influences that may accelerate or decelerate that rate.
In either case, such a rudimentary sampling and testing procedure
can only produce preliminary results, useful for designing further,
more extensive or intensive research on more samples, but
the sampling and testing procedure utilised so far cannot produce
reliable and definitive results.
There are too many variables, too many unknown values, and
too few known constants to allow Wolter's extrapolation from his
preliminary results from observation of Maine tombstones to be
an accurate description of the state of the KRS.
> > Yet the specific type of biotite was not given.
> > I am not a petrology or mineralogy wizard, but
> > I have seen descriptions of a single rock type
> > with four phases of biotite, with different chemical
> > makeup in each.
> > The longer a rock is metamorphosed,
> > the more the biotite that it contains changes;
> > e.g., garnet can grow at the expense of biotite.
> > I have also seen analyses of biotite weathering that distinguished
> > between different types.
> > This might be a case of comparing apples and
> > oranges, WRT weathering characteristics of biotite.
>
> >> The tentative dating for the KRS is
> >> "older than 200 years" because
> >> all of the mica minerals on
> >> the "man-made surfaces" of the KRS
> >> have weathered away
> >> (it's not present in either the inscription or
> >> the surfaces bearing the inscription),
I didn't want to bring this into my critical treatment re: geology,
but
does Wolter indicate that
the surface of the KRS that bears the larger part of the inscription,
aka the "front face",
is a "man-made surface"?
I had thought, from the list of named surfaces of the KRS
that Alan had quoted, that there was only one "man-made surface"
bearing an inscription, i.e.
the one bearing the lesser part of the inscription,
aka the "split side".
It seemed to me that if Wolter has denoted the "front face" as
being "glacial", then that would preclude the "front face" from
being a "man-made surface".
Does Wolter explain which are these inscription-bearing
"man-made surfaces"?
I ask because I have seen several interpretations of which
surfaces of the KRS are "man-made", and I want confirmation
of Wolter's classification scheme.
> >> while the biotite on the tombstones
> >> (average age 194 + or - 5 years)
>
> > Hmmm? I had thought that that was
> > about the age of the oldest tombstone sampled.
>
> "The average age of weathering of the three samples was
> 194 years, plus or minus 5 years."
> The three sample tombstones had "death dates" of 1806, 1805
> and 1815, yielding 197 years, 198 years, and 188 years of
> weathering in 2003.
That average figure, of course, assumes that the tombstones
were erected during the years of their respective death dates,
and ignores the possibility that they
were erected at some time or times after their death dates.
But that average figure also assumes that
the reader cannot do simple arithmetic:
194 + 5 = 199. (Fine, that includes 197 and 198.)
194 - 5 = 189. (That does not include 188.)
The average age of weathering was
194 years, plus or minus
six years, not five years.
The average you quoted is an inaccurate representation of
the values of 197, 198, and 188.
If one is going to round off one's tolerance range to
the nearest half-decade, then
one must also round off one's average value, so that
if a range of plus or minus five years is to be used, then
the average should be stated as being
195 years, plus or minus 5 years
(which is also inaccurate).
> >> is still present,
> >> although it is severly weathered.
> >
> > If the weathering characteristics of the biotites
> > in the Augusta tombstones and the KRS were similar,
> > then that 200-year-plus age estimate might be
> > a fair assumption.
> > But it is as yet only an assumption, as
> > the congruency of the two materials' weathering
> > characteristics has not been proven.
>
> Or, at least, haven't been stated by Nielsen/Wolter.
> I figured as much;
> quite possibly, an apples/bananas comparison,
> all tricked out with some "8 x 10 color glossy photos",
> to borrow a nicely turned phrase from Arlo Guthrie.
And to extend that quasi-literary allusion, those photos
ultimately proved to be useless in determining the facts
of the matter.
From "Alice's Restaurant", * in which ** Officer Obie ***
intends to prove that Arlo and friends had deposited
an inscribed artifact on a low hill:
"We walked in, sat down, Obie came in with the twenty-seven
eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and
a paragraph on the back of each one, sat down. Man came in
said, "All rise." We all stood up, and Obie stood up with the
twenty-seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures, and the judge
walked in sat down with a seeing eye dog, and he sat down, we
sat down. Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the
twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and
arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at
the seeing eye dog. And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten colour
glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the
back of each one and began to cry, 'cause Obie came to the
Realization that it was a typical case of American Blind Justice,
and there wasn't nothing he could do about it, and the judge
wasn't going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy
pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back
of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence
against us."
> >> It is noted that the tombstones are from
> >> a geographical area stated in the text to
> >> average 17 inches of rain per year more than
> >> falls in Kensington (although tabular data
> >> in the book states that the average is
> >> 17 inches of *precipitation*,
> >
> > A minor flaw, perhaps resulting from
> > an assumption that precipitation in Maine
> > is mainly plain rain.
>
> You would have thought that; I certainly did, until
> the authors noted that they hadn't obtained any
> below ground samples from the tombstones because
> the ground was frozen and covered in a foot of snow.
Yeah, you'd think that someone who had been thinking
about rates of weathering would have made a distinction
between low-energy solid precipitation which would tend
to fall off or blow off of a tombstone's surfaces and higher-
energy liquid precipitation which would tend to coat the
surfaces of a tombstone with a continuous film. Or not,
depending on how much actual thinking had been done.
That is a correct appreciation of the gist of my submission,
Your Worship. ****
Spending far too much time on this nonsense ***** ,
Daryl Krupa
* Let Me Make One Thing Perfectly Clear: This song is called
Alice's Restaurant, and it's about Alice, and the restaurant, but
Alice's Restaurant is not the name of the restaurant, that's
just the name of the song, and that's why he called the song
Alice's Restaurant. Thank you, and God Bless America.
** If you've never been there, you should go:
http://www.arlo.net/lyrics/alices.shtml
*** An archetypal Interested Amateur.
**** The original form used in The King's Justice;
besides, the American "Your Honor" is mis-spelled.
Hah. Hah. Hah.
***** <yawn> <thunk> <a'plkzdfhgnnnnnnnnnnnn>
Peter Alaca
1138707616.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
> Steve Marcus wrote:
>> "Daryl Krupa" <icyc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
[...]
[...]
I have pages 34-39 of a Wolter's 2003 paper.
said to be the same as in the book.
p34
The mineralogy of the stone, a metagreywacke,
was comprised dominantly of most angular, fine
grained quartz, orthoclase feldspar, and rock
fragments. The elongated detrital grains exibited a
preferred orientation that is sub-parallel with the
foliation composed of various minerals (muscovite,
chlorite and biotite) that comprise the matrix.
The presence of cleavage, a mild foliation and the
mineral chlorite indicate low-grade metamorphism.
(personal communication, R.W. Ojakangas, 2003)
p36
The KRS is fine-grained metasedimentary rock
called a metagreywacke. The stone exhibits a
strong preferred orientation of very fine mica
minerals (biotite, muscovite and chlorite.
A second, less obvious preferred orientation of
micas suggests the stone was subjected to two
different metamorphic events. This two-directional
foliation of the mica minerals is a unique and
diagnostic feature of the KRS metagreywacke.
Steve Marcus
Yep. That's why the words are in quotation marks.
> If so, that quotation might be evidence that Wolter's writing
> has not been submitted to other geologically-minded types
> for commentary, review, or analysis.
> Alternatively, it's just evidence of sloppiness.
Frankly, (and this is rather harsh after having gotten through only 90 pages
now), I'm beginning to think that:
1) This book was not written with the idea of getting any of the science in
it before any peer review at all, but simply to impress laymen with the
tremendous amount of material, scientific terminology, and pretty pictures
contained in the book; and
2) The authors seem to be just throwing a whole bunch of stuff up there on
the wall, hoping that some of it sticks. Nielsen is particularly adept at
this. Beginning at page 49, the book begins to discuss the language and
runes of the KRS (and so I assume this is Nielsen's work). He throws a
whole bunch old runes from Gotsland, rune variants, dots, inverted U runes,
etc., at the reader. Evidently, he wants us to be impressed by volume, lose
concentration on details, and conclude that all of the presented information
makes a case for the authenticity of the KRS. However, there are many
instances when close reading of the information presented undercuts the case
for authenticity he's trying to make. I will detail that later, when I'm
not sitting home recovering from surgery and have a chance to review the
notes I'm taking while not under the influence of pain killers.
>> >> with three slate (a metamorphic rock) tombstones
>> >> from Augusta Maine
>> >> that were selected from a much larger number of tombstones
>> >> because the mica grain size in samples of those three tombstones
>> >> was comparable to the grain size of the KRS micas.
>> >> The authors only discuss biotite,
>> >> leading me to believe that the tombstones
>> >> did not have the other KRS micas.
>> >
>> > I wouldn't go that far. Absent a detailed description
>> > of the Augusta tombstones, we don't know that.
>> >
>> > Did Wolter say which formation the tombstone slate
>> > was quarried from?
>>
>> Not that I've been able to see in the material that I've read so far.
>> (I've reached the end of the "tombstone comparison" material,
>> but that doesn't mean that more info re the tombstones won't
>> crop up later in the book.)
>> The tombstones were from Hallowell Cemetary in Hallowell, ME.
>
> According to the City of Hallowell, Maine, it is called something
> similar, but yet different: the
> Hallowell Calvary Cemetery (note the lack of an "a" in "cemetery):
>
> http://tinyurl.com/a7cdh
The misspelling of cemetery is my error. The book, however, clearly states
that the cemetery is Hallowell Cemetery:
Page 38, last two lines: "In March of 2003, ... samples from slate
tombstones were collected, with permission, in the Hallowell Cemetery in
Hollowell, Maine." Page 45, first sentence, "Another factor of weathering
... is that the Hallowell Cemetery is located within a few dozen yards of a
railroad."
Pages 13-14: "1. Glacial Face Side - The relatively flat side that
contains the first nine lines of the inscription (see figure 1).
2. Glacial Topo End - Roughly perpendicular to the glacial face side, if the
stone were set upright this side would be at the top (see color section,
plate 4).
3. Glacial Side - This side rounds quickly to near vertical and runs the
entire length of the stone (see figure 2). If you stod facing the upright
stone, the glacial side would correlate to the right side.
4, Glacial Back Side - Somewhat rough and irregular, it is on the opposite
side of the stone from the inscription (see figures 11 & 12).
5. Glacial Bottom End - This end tapers sharply, and was apparently
intended to be set in the ground (see figure 13).
6. Split Side - Relatively flat with an irregular surface, the split side
contains the last three of the total of twelve lines of the inscription (see
figure 18)."
On page 15, the authors state that the face side does not exhibit glacial
striations. On page 18, the authors state that the glacial back side
exhibits relatively deep glacial striations (1 to 5 mm deep) that run
parallel to the stone's axis, indicating that the striations were made when
the stone was still part of the bedrock. I'll quote this sentence verbatim
(grammatical warts and all): "No other sides of the Kensington Rune Stone
that exhibit glacial striations, which indicates that they were made when
the stone was still part of the bedrock."
On page 18, the authors state that the split side (which has the three lines
of text on it) appears to have been purposely shaped or dressed prior to the
inscription having been carved. The authors believe that the split side had
been broken off, and has been exposed to weathering for a signifantly
shorter period of time than has the rest of the KRS.
> I ask because I have seen several interpretations of which
> surfaces of the KRS are "man-made", and I want confirmation
> of Wolter's classification scheme.
>
I hope that the above helps.
And I thank you for your time and input.
> Spending far too much time on this nonsense ***** ,
> Daryl Krupa
>
> * Let Me Make One Thing Perfectly Clear: This song is called
> Alice's Restaurant, and it's about Alice, and the restaurant, but
> Alice's Restaurant is not the name of the restaurant, that's
> just the name of the song, and that's why he called the song
> Alice's Restaurant. Thank you, and God Bless America.
>
> ** If you've never been there, you should go:
> http://www.arlo.net/lyrics/alices.shtml
>
> *** An archetypal Interested Amateur.
>
> **** The original form used in The King's Justice;
> besides, the American "Your Honor" is mis-spelled.
> Hah. Hah. Hah.
>
> ***** <yawn> <thunk> <a'plkzdfhgnnnnnnnnnnnn>
Tom McDonald
> Steve Marcus wrote:
<snip>
With one exception, yes.
The exception is that Steve-o changed 'elongate' in the book to
'elongated' in his snippet. Otherwise, it's letter-perfect.
<snip>
Daryl Krupa
What follows is uninteresting, except as
an example of deconstructive criticsm of
quasi-technical prose.
Peter Alaca wrote:
> > Steve Marcus wrote:
<snip>
> >> Nielsen and Wolter's book, at page 34, discusses
> >> the mineralogy of the KRS and states:
> >> "The elongated grains exhibit a preferred orientation
> >> that is sub-parallel (nearly parallel) with the foliation
> >> composed of various mica minerals (muscovite, chlorite
> >> and biotite) that comprise the matrix."
<snip>
> I have pages 34-39 of a Wolter's 2003 paper.
> said to be the same as in the book.
Similar, yet different. Steve's quote from p. 34 of
the newer book is copied below.
> p34
> The mineralogy of the stone, a metagreywacke,
> was comprised dominantly of most angular, fine
> grained quartz, orthoclase feldspar, and rock
> fragments.
> The elongated
> detrital grains exibited a preferred orientation
> that is sub-parallel with the foliation
> composed of various
> minerals (muscovite, chlorite and biotite)
> that comprise the matrix.
> >> "The elongated grains exhibit a preferred orientation
> >> that is sub-parallel (nearly parallel) with the foliation
> >> composed of various
> >> mica minerals (muscovite, chlorite and biotite)
> >> that comprise the matrix."
The later version dropped "detrital" and added "mica".
"Detrital grains" might be synonymous with "rock fragments",
although I do not know why they would appear in sequential
sentences without some explanation of how the two terms
compare or contrast; one explanation is that all three of the
dominant components are being called "detrital fragments",
in that the quartz and feldspar might have been deposited as
grains of a single mineral type (i.e., after being eroded from
parent rock to form sand), along with grains of more-than-one-
mineral-type (i.e., rock fragments that had not been broken
down into separate mineral types by erosion).
"Elongated detrital grains" would suggest that rock fragments
or sand grains had been squeezed out into more linear shapes,
which might be called lineations, especially if they are related
to a stress event other than the one that created "the foliation".
That there were two stress events is suggested by the
observation that the long axes of the grains (I'm paraphrasing,
here) are not exactly parallel to the planes of "the foliation".
We are still left with the discontinuity between "the foliation"
and "composed of various [mica] minerals".
If what is meant is that
"the foliation" is "composed of various minerals", then
I would say that I would much prefer that it was worded,
"the foliation is [displayed / expressed] by various minerals".
That would more closely follow the meaning of foliation as
a leaf-like arrangement. Otherwise you have a phrase as
confused as, "the arrangement of the book into separate
pages by the printer composed of various words that
comprise the author's manuscript."
And then there is The Matrix. A matrix is the background
material in which special things appear.
The first sentence in the 2003 version of p. 34 says that
the KRS is dominantly quartz, feldspar, and rock fragments.
Those would seem to me to be the constituents of the matrix.
But below that we have a different description of the matrix:
"various minerals (muscovite, chlorite and biotite)
that comprise the matrix".
Perhaps what is meant by "matrix" is the geometric
arrangement of minerals that expresses foliation.
I can't tell one way or the other. Perhaps there are clues below.
> The presence of cleavage, a mild foliation and the
> mineral chlorite indicate low-grade metamorphism.
> (personal communication, R.W. Ojakangas, 2003)
There is nothing wrong with this last sentence,
which leads me to suspect that it might be a verbatim
quotation of something that Okajangas wrote, without
being subjected to Wolter's paraphrasing routine, as
does the lack of mention of elongation / lineation.
N.B.: here we see the term "a mild foliation", not
"the foliation", but in any case, just one foliation.
> p36
> The KRS is fine-grained metasedimentary rock
> called a metagreywacke.
> The stone exhibits
> a strong preferred orientation of
> very fine mica minerals (biotite, muscovite and chlorite.
This is different from
"The elongated detrital grains exibited a preferred orientation",
in that the minerals named could not be detrital grains, because
they appear after detritus has settled down and become sediment,
in fact during metamorphosis from an original sedimentary form,
so it might be assumed that the "orientation" is the tendency of
such minerals to form parallel sheets perpendicular to the
orientation of compressive stress, i.e. to express foliation.
> A second, less obvious
> preferred orientation of
> micas
> suggests the stone was subjected to
> two different metamorphic events.
Okay, now that's something different.
There might be:
- two planes of foliation of mica sheets, indicating
two directions of compression;
- two axes of lineation of mica grains;
- a plane of foliation of mica sheets and a different
lineation of mica grains.
Quite different from either of the p. 34 descriptions,
in any case.
> This two-directional foliation
> of the mica minerals
> is a unique and
> diagnostic feature of the KRS metagreywacke.
Yes, it would be, if that were true.
This p. 36 claim of two orientations and two foliations
contradicts the p. 34 versions of a single orientation
("a preferred orientation") and a single foliation:
("the foliation" and "a mild foliation").
The simplest explanation is that Wolter thinks that
the leaves-like arrangement of a "foliation" and
the "orientation" of an elongation are synonymous.
To me, they are as different as a Bible and the
bullethole that pierces it, unless one wishes to
define foliation as
an expression of compressive force that is
a continuum from
elongation of pre-existing original sand grains to
growth of sheets of new secondary crystals,
as some rock-headed Kiwis would seem to do:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_61280.htm
See here for a graphic description of the difference
between foliation and elongation;
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/deform/gfoliation.html
Here is an image of a metaconglomerate
(metamorphosed gravel) to illustrate elongation and foliation;
the pebbles in the upper part have been elongated sideways
by vertical compression (i.e. extension towards the 9-o'clock
and 3-o'clock directions), and one might see foliation in the
finer material of the lower part, aligned with the 8-o'clock and
2-o'clock positions (i.e., from lower left to upper right), which
would make the orientation of the elongated pebbles
sub-parallel to the mild foliation:
http://seis.natsci.csulb.edu/bperry/metaconglStan2.JPG
See the first three images here, of foliation
and lineation:
http://www.union.edu/PUBLIC/GEODEPT/COURSES/geo-10/metamorphic.htm
Whatever was meant, the geological findings
re: the KRS have not yet been described clearly
in an accessible form.
And so I remain,
Daryl Krupa,
Looking up the etymology of frustration
(telling, that ... )
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=frustrate
Daryl Krupa
Steve Marcus wrote:
> Daryl Krupa wrote:
> > Steve Marcus wrote:
<snip>
> >> the mineralogy of the KRS and states:
> >> "The elongated grains
> >> exhibit a preferred orientation
> >> that is sub-parallel (nearly parallel) with
> >> the foliation
> >> composed of various mica minerals (muscovite, chlorite and biotite)
> >> that comprise the matrix."
Thank you for the review _pro tem_, Steve; what you say about
Nielsen and close reading and undercutting would seem to apply
to Wolter as well.
And that's just sad. A great disappointment, I'm sure.
BTW, the pain killers seem to have mellowed you out.
Me, I like you better this way. Consider becoming addicted. <g>
<snip>
Yes, thank you very much: that is very useful to me.
<snip>
> >> "The average age of weathering of the three samples was
> >> 194 years, plus or minus 5 years."
> >> The three sample tombstones had "death dates" of 1806, 1805
> >> and 1815, yielding 197 years, 198 years, and 188 years of
> >> weathering in 2003.
<snip>
I forgot to mention that an average of three integers
should not be expressed as an indefinite number,
especially one that may or may not be larger than
all of those integers;
194 + 5 = 199 years old,
one year older than the oldest tombstone sampled.
If Wolter's averaging routine can produce an answer that
includes an age that predates the date on the oldest
tombstone, then that older age would indicate that whoever
ordered a tombstone in 1804 and
had an 1805 date inscribed on it
was probably contemplating murder most foul.
Or suicide.
What could Wolter have been thinking of?
Perhaps he knows something he's not telling about the
reliability of the dates on the tombstones, as indicators of
their age? *
<snip>
> >> Your input seems to be that their "tombstone evidence" may
> >> be nothing more than suggestive, but inconclusive.
> >
> > That is a correct appreciation of the gist of my submission,
> > Your Worship. ****
> >
> And I thank you for your time and input.
You're welcome. It didn't take all that much time;
mostly, I extended the same criticisms that applied
when news of Wolter's efforts first appeared in this forum.
Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.
(Only the names have been changed, to protect the
reader from the dire effects of understanding the results.)
-
Daryl Krupa
* "Sometimes a slip is just a slip. Or a nightshirt.
Or a national costume. Here's five shillings.
Forget you saw me in your Mother's clothes."
- Dr. Sigmund Freud, "Seeing How the Other Half Lives"
Daryl Krupa
Tom McDonald wrote:
> Daryl Krupa wrote:
> > Steve Marcus wrote:
<snip>
> >>Nielsen and Wolter's book, at page 34, discusses
> >>the mineralogy of the KRS and states:
> >>"The elongated grains
> >>exhibit a preferred orientation
> >>that is sub-parallel (nearly parallel) with
> >>the foliation
> >>composed of various mica minerals (muscovite, chlorite and biotite)
> >>that comprise the matrix."
> > Did you quote the book word-for-word, i.e. verbatim, above?
>
> With one exception, yes.
>
> The exception is that Steve-o changed 'elongate' in the book to
> 'elongated' in his snippet. Otherwise, it's letter-perfect.
Thanks for that confirmation, Tom.
I suppose that if you squinted your eyes like so,
and held your tongue just right, and threw the dictionary
over your left shoulder and out the window, it might make sense.
But it's too many for me.
Isn't there some sort of prize for impenetrable prose?
-
Daryl Krupa
Peter Alaca
1138791741.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com,
[...]
> Peter, and all:
> What follows is uninteresting, except as
> an example of deconstructive criticsm of
> quasi-technical prose.
[...]
Sorry to dissapoint you, but it is interesting,
and the illustrations are very helpful to explain
the terminology.
Peter Alaca
1138794223.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Yes, and Inger was the first winner.
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> It is noted that the tombstones are from
>>> a geographical area stated in the text to
>>> average 17 inches of rain per year more than
>>> falls in Kensington (although tabular data
>>> in the book states that the average is
>>> 17 inches of *precipitation*,
>>
>> A minor flaw, perhaps resulting from
>> an assumption that precipitation in Maine
>> is mainly plain rain.
>
>You would have thought that; I certainly did, until the authors noted that
>they hadn't obtained any below ground samples from the tombstones because
>the ground was frozen and covered in a foot of snow.
I know you were discussing the difference between rain and snow as
precipitation but just to correct any misapprehension arising from
your final paragraph, on p39 the authors also stated that:
"Subsequent below-grade studies have not been performed due to the
difference in pH of the soil in Hallowell, Maine and the Kensington
Rune Stone discovery site".
Eric Stevens
Hayabusa
wrote:
> Steve:
> Just to be perfectly clear, yes, "metagraywacke" implies that
>the rock was sedimentary graywacke
>produced by metamorphism,
>much as slate is produced from shale.
The difference between slate and graywacke is: slate is derived only
from clay, or mudstone, plus perhaps a little fince quartz sand; then
heated above 250°C. Graywacke is a sediment consisting mainly of sand
and coarser grains containing all sorts of minerals (i.e. not
quartz-rich). If heated above 250°C you may call it a metagraywacke.
They are better understood genetically: clay is deposited in very
quiet marine environments far from the coast; a graywacke is commonly
produced if eg. a river delta collapses and goes down the continental
slope at the speed of a train, spreading out for 500 to 2000 km.
Necessarily all previous grain size sorting is lost in the process.
(If there is a storm in the Ganges delta and an island vanishes plus
people living on it, they may be south of the equator the following
day, plus 3000m deeper.)
>> Metagraywacke.
>> >
>> >> bearing these micas: biotite, chlorite and muscovite)
>> >
>> > Chlorite is a flat sheet silicate, like the micas,
>> > but it is not generally called a mica, though some would see it as
>> > related. From:
Micas by definition contain potassium and are aluminum-rich, chlorites
do not. Both are sheet silicates. Chlorite always looks green (hence
the name). Biotite at these met.temps looks green too, but much darker
and only under the scope; in hand specimen it looks black.
>> > http://www.eos.ubc.ca/personal/groat/claymanual.htm
>>
>> I was working from this site, which gives "the most common"
>> micas, and does not list chlorite (but, of course, does not
>> exclude chlorite as a member of the mica grouping):
The most common micas are white mica (muscovite, K-Al-rich) and black
mica (biotite, K-Fe-MG-containing). They may or may not be associated
with chlorite (Mg-Fe-rich sheet silicate). Chlorite and white mica
occur together mainly at metamorphic temps below ca.300°C because at
higher temps they form biotite until either all the white mica or all
the chlorite is consumed.
>> > Does Wolter say that chlorite is a type of mica?
>>
>> Nielsen and Wolter's book, at page 34, discusses
>> the mineralogy of the KRS and states:
>> "The elongated grains
>> exhibit a preferred orientation
>> that is sub-parallel (nearly parallel) with
>> the foliation
>> composed of various mica minerals (muscovite, chlorite and biotite)
>> that comprise the matrix."
>
> Aaarrgghh. How are we supposed to parse this sentence?
> I can't tell what is supposed to be composed of mica.
The rock.
> It's not the foliation, because that is
>a physical property of the rock
The sheet silicates commonly outline the foliation by their shape.
Sheet silicates look like little books - flat and long like a stack of
paper. At low metamorphic grade (which is what we are talking about
here) they align with the sedimentary layering; later with the
foliation (which is entirely deformation-induced). If the angle
between foliation and sedimentary layering isn't that great, for the
purpose of this discussion you can take them as being the same.
In any case, the sheet silicate orientation define the one big
characteristic property of the rock.
> It's not the preferred orientation, because that is also
>a physical property of the rock,
Yes it is. Because we _are_ talking about properties of the rock. It
is, in fact, nearly impossible to find a mica rock without preferred
orientation.
> also indicating
>a significant direction of stress on the rock during metamorphosis.
> It might be the elongated grains, but then we have to guess at
>what words are missing to connect
>"The elongated grains" to
>"composed of various mica minerals".
That goes without saying. Ever looked into a thin section? The only
other mineral that could line up because of shape elongation would be
the first amphibolites, but for them the metamorphic temps were not
high enough, apparently, or else they would have been mentioned.
> As quoted above, the sentence is unclear as to its meaning.
> This would be an example of a style of writing that
>is not indicative of scientific thought processes;
>it also does not qualify for technical writing standards.
No.
> Did you quote the book word-for-word, i.e. verbatim, above?
> If so, that quotation might be evidence that Wolter's writing
>has not been submitted to other geologically-minded types
>for commentary, review, or analysis.
I'd accept it, it is clear enough to me.
> I.e., Maine tombstones are younger than they look,
>so the KRS is older than it looks.
> Fine. That would mean that the KRS stood out in the open,
>exposed to weather, for longer than
>those sampled Maine tombstones have stood out in the weather.
> But that is just an educated guess. It is not a proven fact.
> Weathering of KRS biotite might have proceeded more rapidly
>than weathering of Hellowell Calvary Cemetery tombstone biotite
>(as you mention above, possibly by the action of
>acid produced by lichen).
> Weathering of Hellowell Calvary Cemetery tombstone biotite
>might be unusually slow.
>
> And, of course, Wolter's Maine-tombstone-to-KRS comparison
>depends upon a fundamental assumption, that
>the KRS has not experienced any factors which might
>"accelerate the weathering rate of biotite mica".
> In suggesting that weathering rate of the Maine tombstone biotite
>might have been accelerated, Wolter is treating the KRS
>as if it were the control sample in the comparison
>(which is not the way to do the comparison),
>or,
>he is implicitly acknowledging that
>Maine tombstones should not be considered to be reliable
>control samples regarding the rate of biotite weathering,
The pH-value of the two environments may have differed a bit, but the
real point is elsewhere. Weathering is still a relatively slow
process, at the human time scale. The question to be answered here is:
how old are the inscriptions in the rock - 200 years or so, or 1000
years or so. I would consider the comparison significant because one
biotite cannot weather 10 times faster than another.
>until more is known about rates of biotite weathering and
>the various influences that may accelerate or decelerate that rate.
> In either case, such a rudimentary sampling and testing procedure
>can only produce preliminary results, useful for designing further,
>more extensive or intensive research on more samples, but
>the sampling and testing procedure utilised so far cannot produce
>reliable and definitive results.
> There are too many variables, too many unknown values, and
>too few known constants to allow Wolter's extrapolation from his
>preliminary results from observation of Maine tombstones to be
>an accurate description of the state of the KRS.
I think you are making it look more complicated than it actually is.
The time involved is very short, from the biotite's point of view.
>> "The average age of weathering of the three samples was
>> 194 years, plus or minus 5 years."
>> The three sample tombstones had "death dates" of 1806, 1805
>> and 1815, yielding 197 years, 198 years, and 188 years of
>> weathering in 2003.
That sounds odd. I don't trust such precise dates. But then I know
little about the methods involved.
fkoe
Hayabusa
wrote:
So, that means the metamorphic temp was rather low, ca.220°C or a
little more, or else the Ksp would have decayed to white mica. The
foliation in this case is the sedimentary layering, and sheet
silicates aligning with the foliation is common in such low-grade
rocks. He specifically mentions the cleavage as a separate structural
element, so it is probably at a fair angle to the sed.layering.
>p36
> The KRS is fine-grained metasedimentary rock
> called a metagreywacke. The stone exhibits a
> strong preferred orientation of very fine mica
> minerals (biotite, muscovite and chlorite.
> A second, less obvious preferred orientation of
> micas suggests the stone was subjected to two
> different metamorphic events. This two-directional
> foliation of the mica minerals is a unique and
> diagnostic feature of the KRS metagreywacke.
replace mica minerals by sheet silicates, and the description is ok.
The first mica fabric is commonly still due to compaction which
continues from sedimentary conditions right into the very-low-grade
metamorphic ones. Since he mentions a cleavage, that is a sign of
tectonic deformation. Thus I would take issue with the interpretation
offered in sentence 3 if I were talking to a student. The last
sentence is probably correct anyway.
fkoe
Hayabusa
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>2) The authors seem to be just throwing a whole bunch of stuff up there on
>the wall, hoping that some of it sticks. Nielsen is particularly adept at
>this. Beginning at page 49, the book begins to discuss the language and
>runes of the KRS (and so I assume this is Nielsen's work). He throws a
>whole bunch old runes from Gotsland, rune variants, dots, inverted U runes,
>etc., at the reader. Evidently, he wants us to be impressed by volume, lose
>concentration on details, and conclude that all of the presented information
>makes a case for the authenticity of the KRS. However, there are many
>instances when close reading of the information presented undercuts the case
>for authenticity he's trying to make. I will detail that later, when I'm
>not sitting home recovering from surgery and have a chance to review the
>notes I'm taking while not under the influence of pain killers.
Get well!
>> And, of course, Wolter's Maine-tombstone-to-KRS comparison
>> depends upon a fundamental assumption, that
>> the KRS has not experienced any factors which might
>> "accelerate the weathering rate of biotite mica".
>> In suggesting that weathering rate of the Maine tombstone biotite
>> might have been accelerated, Wolter is treating the KRS
>> as if it were the control sample in the comparison
>> (which is not the way to do the comparison),
I think that' a fair assumption. Biotite doesn't weather easily. -
Take into account that I know little about weathering, but I am a
hardrocker. I have seen biotite bleached by acidic soils - swamps and
bogs; these conditions are usually much stronger than any rain can
provide, and the bleaching was caused over 10.000 years or so. If you
leave biotite in a jar of humous acid for 100 years I would be
surprised if you get any observable effect.
The characteristic sign is probably not that the striations are
parallel to the extension of the stone, but that they are parallel to
one another. A stone that was transported in a glacier will be
continuously reoriented and be scratched in all sorts of directions,
and on all faces.
>>> >> while the biotite on the tombstones
>>> >> (average age 194 + or - 5 years)
>>>
>>> > Hmmm? I had thought that that was
>>> > about the age of the oldest tombstone sampled.
>>>
>>> "The average age of weathering of the three samples was
>>> 194 years, plus or minus 5 years."
>>> The three sample tombstones had "death dates" of 1806, 1805
>>> and 1815, yielding 197 years, 198 years, and 188 years of
>>> weathering in 2003.
Again, such precise numbers cause red alert for me. At least I'd like
to see the original study.
fkoe
Steve Marcus
"Hayabusa" <pere...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:6351u15pu6401u34n...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:19:31 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>2) The authors seem to be just throwing a whole bunch of stuff up there
>>on
>>the wall, hoping that some of it sticks. Nielsen is particularly adept at
>>this. Beginning at page 49, the book begins to discuss the language and
>>runes of the KRS (and so I assume this is Nielsen's work). He throws a
>>whole bunch old runes from Gotsland, rune variants, dots, inverted U
>>runes,
>>etc., at the reader. Evidently, he wants us to be impressed by volume,
>>lose
>>concentration on details, and conclude that all of the presented
>>information
>>makes a case for the authenticity of the KRS. However, there are many
>>instances when close reading of the information presented undercuts the
>>case
>>for authenticity he's trying to make. I will detail that later, when I'm
>>not sitting home recovering from surgery and have a chance to review the
>>notes I'm taking while not under the influence of pain killers.
>
> Get well!
Thanks. I'm just about there.
>
>
>>> And, of course, Wolter's Maine-tombstone-to-KRS comparison
>>> depends upon a fundamental assumption, that
>>> the KRS has not experienced any factors which might
>>> "accelerate the weathering rate of biotite mica".
>>> In suggesting that weathering rate of the Maine tombstone biotite
>>> might have been accelerated, Wolter is treating the KRS
>>> as if it were the control sample in the comparison
>>> (which is not the way to do the comparison),
>
> I think that' a fair assumption. Biotite doesn't weather easily. -
> Take into account that I know little about weathering, but I am a
> hardrocker. I have seen biotite bleached by acidic soils - swamps and
> bogs; these conditions are usually much stronger than any rain can
> provide, and the bleaching was caused over 10.000 years or so. If you
> leave biotite in a jar of humous acid for 100 years I would be
> surprised if you get any observable effect.
Interesting. The authors state that at least some of the Maine tombstones
(although they don't positively state it for the three samples they used in
their dating of the KRS) had lichens on them and that acid produced by
these lichens would
"accelerate the weathering rate of biotite mica."
The KRS was discovered buried in soil that one might safely predicate was a
bit "swampy" or "boggy"; that condition was used to support consideration of
Runestone Hill as fitting the term "island" which appears on the KRS. Do I
conclude from your post that burying a stone in swampy or boggy conditions
would not accelerate the weathering of biotite so as to impart a "200 year
old appearance" to, let's say, a 100 year old inscription that had been
buried for 50 years?
Thanks for you kind thought, and for your time.
Steve Marcus
the issue of snow (which might have in turn been germane to the issue of
"precipation" versus "rainfall"). However, now that you mention it, would
you consider it fair to say that the authors originally didn't collect
samples due to the ground being frozen and snow covered? Then, when they
later went back, they didn't collect samples because of the pH difference in
the soils. Now, why would that make a difference? Wasn't the entire KRS
buried in soil, for what is assumed to be at least 30 years (given the age
of the tree according to the compilation of witness statements in their
book)? If soil conditions (for example acidic pH in Kensington) might be a
factor in accelerating a weathered appearance, wouldn't a comparison of the
appearance of the below grade samples and the KRS be in order? I imagine
that there was some reason for the authors having originally intended to
collect below ground samples in Maine. Shouldn't they have done so,
reported the comparative results, and then also reported the issue of the pH
difference?
Just asking ...
>
> Eric Stevens
Daryl Krupa
Steve Marcus wrote:
> Eric Stevens wrote:
<snip>
> > I know you were discussing the difference between rain and snow as
> > precipitation but just to correct any misapprehension arising from
> > your final paragraph, on p39 the authors also stated that:
> >
> > "Subsequent below-grade studies have not been performed due to the
> > difference in pH of the soil in Hallowell, Maine and the Kensington
> > Rune Stone discovery site".
> However, now that you mention it, would you consider it fair to
> say that the authors originally didn't collect samples
> due to the ground being frozen and snow covered?
> Then, when they later went back,
> they didn't collect samples because of
> the pH difference in the soils.
Steve:
Perhaps the investigators never did go back to Hallowell,
having learned something about soil pH differences and their
possibly differential effects on rock weathering after the
initial tombstone-observation expedition.
Is there some mention of a follow-up expedition to the
cemetery at Hallowell in the book?
Is there any mention that they took soil samples from the
cemetery?
(I would be surprised if they did; cemetery managers tend to
frown on excavations by outsiders, however small the effort.
It just looks bad to visiting family members.)
Is there any indication that they knew the pH of the soil
in that cemetery?
> Now, why would that make a difference?
> Wasn't the entire KRS buried in soil, for what is assumed to be
> at least 30 years (given the age of the tree according to
> the compilation of witness statements in their book)?
> If soil conditions (for example acidic pH in Kensington) might be
> a factor in accelerating a weathered appearance,
> wouldn't a comparison of the appearance of the below grade
> samples and the KRS be in order?
Yes, indeedy, it so be in order.
If the comparison of the KRS to the above-ground weathering
of those tombstones is thought to be a reliable indicator of
the rate of above-ground weathering of the KRS, then surely
a comparison between the above-ground and below-grade
weathering characteristics of the tombstones would be
a useful addition to the (as-yet very, very limited) data set re:
weathering of biotite in the field.
That is exactly the sort of comparable baseline / background
information that is neede for an investigation of biotite weathering.
once one has suh information, then similar slate stones in
the same region, but with different soil characteristics, can be
investigated and compared with the original data, which might
eventually allow the development of reliable conclusions as to
the relative contributions of below-grade and above-ground
conditions to biotite weathering.
And _that_ might eventually lead to an esitmate of the relative
contributions of above-ground and beow-grade weathering to the
bioite weathering in the KRS, which might give _some_ indication
of how long it was buried and how long it was standing tall.
(Assuming, of course, that no artificial weathering has affected
the KRS.)
That such investigation was not done, on the grounds that soil
pH was different, indicates that the investigators were not
interested in building up a useful knowledge base re: biotite
weathering in the field. The several differences between,
and unknown quantities of variables of,
factors involved in above-ground influences on weathering
as they relate to Runestone Hill and Hallowell, respectively,
did not stop them from comparing the two above-ground situations
as if they were congruent, so there should be no reason to
abandon a productive line of research simply because one other
variable is [supposedly]? significantly different between the two
sites.
Perhaps the motivation for abandoning that line of research was
the KISS principle: any mention of the great variety of complications
involved in drawing conclusions from preliminary findings without
a background of comprehensive basic research into the subject
might inspire questions as to the validity of the conclusion drawn
thus far re: the age of the KRS, as based on those preliminary
findings.
Scientists don't just ask questions and speculate upon the answers;
scientists try to get reliable information that will help them to
choose
between possible answers. As excuses go, the soil-pH difference is,
IMO, either not convincing or not confidence-inspiring. (I would need
more information as to the actual motivatios of the investigators
in order to choose between those two answers, and unfortunately,
the environment around the sampling site seems to be a tad too sour
to allow the collection of reliable data in that regard, and one would
not expect the custodians of that data to want me to go about
"digging up dirt" in their back yard, so to speak.)
Peter Alaca
> "Hayabusa" wrote
>> , "Steve Marcus" wrote:
>>> Steve Marcus wrote:
For the effect of lichens and more, see
"Biodegradation of Cultural Heritage:
"Decay Mechanisms and Control Methods"
http://www.arcchip.cz/w09/w09_tiano.pdf
[300 kb]
(Lichens on page 6)
And also, with an other view:
Irish Stone Monuments study
http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/publications/stone/conc.html
" Patinas of biological origin were studied on
limestone and sandstone. Microscopic study
showed evidence of carbonate and quartz
particles being removed by the lichen and
incorporated into biological tissue in limestone
and sandstone respectively.
...
However, biological coats also provide protection
against rainfall dissolution, wind abrasion,
atmospheric pollution and salt weathering. The
rate of particle removal by lichen can be lower
than the rate of material loss through the above
decay processes and agents, especially in the
exposed environments of the west coast. ..."
Steve Marcus
>
> Steve Marcus wrote:
>> Daryl Krupa wrote:
>> > Steve Marcus wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> 2) The authors seem to be just throwing a whole bunch of stuff up there
>> on
>> the wall, hoping that some of it sticks. Nielsen is particularly adept
>> at
>> this. Beginning at page 49, the book begins to discuss the language and
>> runes of the KRS (and so I assume this is Nielsen's work). He throws a
>> whole bunch old runes from Gotsland, rune variants, dots, inverted U
>> runes,
>> etc., at the reader. Evidently, he wants us to be impressed by volume,
>> lose
>> concentration on details, and conclude that all of the presented
>> information
>> makes a case for the authenticity of the KRS. However, there are many
>> instances when close reading of the information presented undercuts the
>> case
>> for authenticity he's trying to make. I will detail that later, when I'm
>> not sitting home recovering from surgery and have a chance to review the
>> notes I'm taking while not under the influence of pain killers.
>
> Thank you for the review _pro tem_, Steve; what you say about
> Nielsen and close reading and undercutting would seem to apply
> to Wolter as well.
> And that's just sad. A great disappointment, I'm sure.
> BTW, the pain killers seem to have mellowed you out.
> Me, I like you better this way. Consider becoming addicted. <g>
Well, Daryl, I appreciate those last comments.
Actually, there are only five posters with whom I've had very serious issues
and whom I allowed to provoke me into less than gracious "conversation."
One has ceased posting on this newsgroup for reasons unknown, another has
ceased posting on this newsgroup because there is no Internet connection in
hell, two others have simply refused to address anything I post, which is
fine with me because it saves me from having to reply to Inger's tripe and
Seppo's poor imitations of tripe. The fifth poster has me "on ignore",
except when he doesn't, and can usually avoid provoking me towards nastiness
until he realizes that his position is untenable and he then begins spewing
clouds of squink as a prelude to putting me "on ignore." You realize, of
course, that I cannot name names here. Inger's Swedish police may be
watching and might notify the International Usenet Police.
I've now cut down on the pain killers; in fact I should be going to work
tomorrow for one good solid day's toil prior to having to take Friday off to
visit the surgeon so that he may pronounce his work as having been "Good",
(with a capital G and that rhymes with "P" which, in the surgeon's case,
stands for "now I can get the upgrade engine on that new Merecedes I've been
looking to buy despite the increased Price."
<balanced snipped>
> -
> Daryl Krupa
>
> * "Sometimes a slip is just a slip. Or a nightshirt.
> Or a national costume. Here's five shillings.
> Forget you saw me in your Mother's clothes."
> - Dr. Sigmund Freud, "Seeing How the Other Half Lives"
>
Tedd Jacobs
"Steve Marcus" wrote...
>
> "Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:8262u15a4hhv7ppek...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:14:55 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> It is noted that the tombstones are from
>>>>> a geographical area stated in the text to
>>>>> average 17 inches of rain per year more than
>>>>> falls in Kensington (although tabular data
>>>>> in the book states that the average is
>>>>> 17 inches of *precipitation*,
>>>>
>>>> A minor flaw, perhaps resulting from
>>>> an assumption that precipitation in Maine
>>>> is mainly plain rain.
>>>
>>>You would have thought that; I certainly did, until the authors noted
>>>that
>>>they hadn't obtained any below ground samples from the tombstones because
>>>the ground was frozen and covered in a foot of snow.
>>
>> I know you were discussing the difference between rain and snow as
>> precipitation but just to correct any misapprehension arising from
>> your final paragraph, on p39 the authors also stated that:
>>
>> "Subsequent below-grade studies have not been performed due to the
>> difference in pH of the soil in Hallowell, Maine and the Kensington
>> Rune Stone discovery site".
red herring; has nothing to do with collecting samples. a smoke-screen to
justify not collecting samples is to discount the integrity of the samples
or the presupposed results of an analysis.
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
That's what they said.
>Then, when they
>later went back, they didn't collect samples because of the pH difference in
>the soils. Now, why would that make a difference? Wasn't the entire KRS
>buried in soil, for what is assumed to be at least 30 years (given the age
>of the tree according to the compilation of witness statements in their
>book)? If soil conditions (for example acidic pH in Kensington) might be a
>factor in accelerating a weathered appearance, wouldn't a comparison of the
>appearance of the below grade samples and the KRS be in order? I imagine
>that there was some reason for the authors having originally intended to
>collect below ground samples in Maine. Shouldn't they have done so,
>reported the comparative results, and then also reported the issue of the pH
>difference?
>
>Just asking ...
>
I've always wondered about this. I might be able to make a more useful
comment if I knew the respective pHs.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
--- snip ---
>The KRS was discovered buried in soil that one might safely predicate was a
>bit "swampy" or "boggy"; that condition was used to support consideration of
>Runestone Hill as fitting the term "island" which appears on the KRS.
Aren't you jumping to a conclusion here? The runestone was found on
the side of a hill of 'glacial till'. Somebody (Daryl?) has already
pointed out that the term 'glacial till' covers a wide range of
possible materials but I am not aware that anyone has suggested that
the particular site ever was swampy or boggy. As far as I know, the
description of swampy/boggy has been applied to the conditions at the
foot of the hill but not the hill itself.
>Do I
>conclude from your post that burying a stone in swampy or boggy conditions
>would not accelerate the weathering of biotite so as to impart a "200 year
>old appearance" to, let's say, a 100 year old inscription that had been
>buried for 50 years?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Steve Marcus wrote:
I'm not quite sure that this is entirely relevant to the KRS which is
made of greywacke which is not mentioned at all. Basalt is mentioned
only once and then only in reference [103]. There is no mention of
granite or slate. The materials of primary interest are sandstone,
limestone and marble..
>
>And also, with an other view:
>Irish Stone Monuments study
>http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/publications/stone/conc.html
>
> " Patinas of biological origin were studied on
> limestone and sandstone. Microscopic study
> showed evidence of carbonate and quartz
> particles being removed by the lichen and
> incorporated into biological tissue in limestone
> and sandstone respectively.
> ...
> However, biological coats also provide protection
> against rainfall dissolution, wind abrasion,
> atmospheric pollution and salt weathering. The
> rate of particle removal by lichen can be lower
> than the rate of material loss through the above
> decay processes and agents, especially in the
> exposed environments of the west coast. ..."
This too seems to primarily focus on sandstone and limestone.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
Daryl, you don't need to take soil samples away to determine soil pH.
You can even buy kits to do this on site in all the better gardening
stores. See http://tinyurl.com/d3njy for example.
Yes, there is an indication that they knew the soil pH in both the
cemetery and at the KRS site. They said they were different.
Eric Stevens
joerev...@bellsouth.net
> On 31 Jan 2006 03:40:16 -0800, "Daryl Krupa" <icyc...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Steve:
>> Just to be perfectly clear, yes, "metagraywacke" implies that
>>the rock was sedimentary graywacke
>>produced by metamorphism,
>>much as slate is produced from shale.
>
> The difference between slate and graywacke is: slate is derived only
> from clay, or mudstone, plus perhaps a little fince quartz sand; then
> heated above 250°C. Graywacke is a sediment consisting mainly of sand
> and coarser grains containing all sorts of minerals (i.e. not
> quartz-rich). If heated above 250°C you may call it a metagraywacke.
> They are better understood genetically: clay is deposited in very
> quiet marine environments far from the coast; a graywacke is commonly
> produced if eg. a river delta collapses and goes down the continental
> slope at the speed of a train, spreading out for 500 to 2000 km.
> Necessarily all previous grain size sorting is lost in the process.
> (If there is a storm in the Ganges delta and an island vanishes plus
> people living on it, they may be south of the equator the following
> day, plus 3000m deeper.)
>
This portion of this post makes it difficult to take your opinions very
seriously. The previous poster did not compare slate to graywake; but rather
compared the relationship between metagrawake and graywake to that between
slate and shale; or more accurately still a transformational relationship
between the one pair to that between the other pair.
Daryl Krupa
Peter Alaca wrote:
> Daryl Krupa wrote:
> > Peter, and all:
> > What follows is uninteresting, except as
> > an example of deconstructive criticsm of
> > quasi-technical prose.
> [...]
> Sorry to dissapoint you, but it is interesting,
> and the illustrations are very helpful to explain
> the terminology.
Peter:
Cool. I did try to point to illustrations that were relevant
(not too many of metagraywacke, mainly cuz it's so variable,
I suppose).
Here's a White Paper that might explain why I'm such a
curmudgeon. From:
Spatial Thinking with a Difference:
An Unorthodox Treatise on the Mind of the Geologist,
by Sarah Andrews.
http://www.sarahandrews.net/spatialthinking.htm
"Questioning authority
Once a geologist deduces working hypotheses, he then
automatically and continuously challenges them.
This is because the world is an analog place of non-discrete
possibilities, where all solutions are at best viewed as trial
approximations en route to an improved understanding;
straw dogs set up only to be torn to pieces.
This is the ultimate questioning of authority, a scrutinizing
and scrupulous taking of responsibility of all data and even
one's own results, and as such the ultimate pragmatism."
And here's another, giving three methods of scientific investigation.
I tend toward the last, while others (True Believers) tend towards
the first:
Geological Thinking
The method of multiple working hypotheses
http://geology.about.com/od/history_of_geology/a/aa_geothinking.htm?nl=1
I like these quotes, of 19th-Century geologist
Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin, from:
OR
"The working hypothesis, we are told, is a hypothesis
to be tested, not in order to prove the hypothesis, but
as a stimulus for study and fact-finding.
Nonetheless, the single working hypothesis can imperceptibly
degenerate into a ruling theory, and our desire to prove the
working hypothesis, despite evidence to the contrary, can
become as strong as the desire to prove the ruling theory."
"In using the method of multiple working hypotheses,
we try to open-mindedly envision and list
all the possible hypotheses
that could account for the phenomenon to be studied.
This induces greater care in ascertaining the facts and
greater discrimination and caution in drawing conclusions.
Although our human tendencies lead us toward
the method of the ruling theory, the method of
multiple working hypotheses offers the best chance of
open-minded research that avoids false conclusions."
And on the possible drawbacks of considering
more than one possible explanation of the facts:
"A third possible problem is that of vacillation or indecision
as we balance the evidence for various hypotheses.
Such vacillation may be bad for the researcher, but
such vacillation is preferable to the premature rush to
a false conclusion."
Complete version of one of Chamberlin's papers on this topic:
The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses
With this method the dangers of parental
affection for a favorite theory can be circumvented.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/chamberlin.html
My kinda guy, Chamberlin: born on a glacial moraine,
lived to explain it.
Me, I was born on a glacial lake, which was on a sub-glacial
glacio-fluvial glacio-lacustrine jokuhlaup rhythmite deposit under
a freshwater ice shelf over a glacial moraine, but you get the idea.
-
Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa
> Daryl Krupa wrote:
>
> > Steve:
> > Just to be perfectly clear, yes, "metagraywacke" implies that
> >the rock was sedimentary graywacke
> >produced by metamorphism,
> >much as slate is produced from shale.
>
> The difference between slate and graywacke is: slate is derived only
> from clay, or mudstone, plus perhaps a little fince quartz sand; then
> heated above 250°C. Graywacke is a sediment consisting mainly of sand
> and coarser grains containing all sorts of minerals (i.e. not
> quartz-rich). If heated above 250°C you may call it a metagraywacke.
> They are better understood genetically: clay is deposited in very
> quiet marine environments far from the coast; a graywacke is commonly
> produced if eg. a river delta collapses and goes down the continental
> slope at the speed of a train, spreading out for 500 to 2000 km.
> Necessarily all previous grain size sorting is lost in the process.
> (If there is a storm in the Ganges delta and an island vanishes plus
> people living on it, they may be south of the equator the following
> day, plus 3000m deeper.)
fkoe:
Well, yes, agreed, but I did use the qualifier "much as". <g>
Mind you, considering that the microcontinents existing at
the likely time of the deposition of the parent sedimentary body
of the KRS would have been rather small, I'm not sure about the
applicability of a delta-collapse scenario.
Rivers would have been relatively short, and continental shelf
would have barely existed, so deltas might not have been large,
though they would likely have been unstable.
I tend toward the submarine-avalanche-of-unstable-accumulations-
of-unstable-continental-slope-deposits-derived-directly-from-
rapidly-eroding-volcanic-highlands proto-melange scenario, myself.
<snipped attribution of Wolter; include such an attribution, please>
> >> >> bearing these micas: biotite, chlorite and muscovite)
> >> >
> >> > Chlorite is a flat sheet silicate, like the micas,
> >> > but it is not generally called a mica, though some would see it as
> >> > related. From:
>
> Micas by definition contain potassium and are aluminum-rich,
> chlorites do not. Both are sheet silicates. Chlorite always looks
> green (hence the name). Biotite at these met.temps looks
> green too, but much darker and only under the scope;
> in hand specimen it looks black.
Agreed, except that older biotite can also look brown or even
yellow, depending on how much of what elements have been
'leached away' by adjacent 'parasitic' (my term) crystals
growing at their expense within bedrock.
> >> > http://www.eos.ubc.ca/personal/groat/claymanual.htm
> >>
> >> I was working from this site, which gives "the most common"
> >> micas, and does not list chlorite (but, of course, does not
> >> exclude chlorite as a member of the mica grouping):
>
> The most common micas are white mica (muscovite, K-Al-rich)
> and black mica (biotite, K-Fe-MG-containing).
> They may or may not be associated with
> chlorite (Mg-Fe-rich sheet silicate). Chlorite and white mica
> occur together mainly at metamorphic temps below ca.300°C
> because at higher temps they form biotite until
> either all the white mica or all the chlorite is consumed.
Sounds good to me.
(& BTW, that's a good example of scientific prose style.)
> >> > Does Wolter say that chlorite is a type of mica?
> >>
> >> Nielsen and Wolter's book, at page 34, discusses
> >> the mineralogy of the KRS and states:
> >> "The elongated grains
> >> exhibit a preferred orientation
> >> that is sub-parallel (nearly parallel) with
> >> the foliation
> >> composed of various mica minerals (muscovite, chlorite and biotite)
> >> that comprise the matrix."
> >
> > Aaarrgghh. How are we supposed to parse this sentence?
> > I can't tell what is supposed to be composed of mica.
>
> The rock.
Not mentioned, as such, in the quotation, though that _might_
be a reasonable interpolation of a gap in the available data.
> > It's not the foliation, because that is
> >a physical property of the rock
>
> The sheet silicates commonly outline the foliation by their shape.
> Sheet silicates look like little books - flat and long like a stack of
> paper. At low metamorphic grade (which is what we are talking about
> here) they align with the sedimentary layering; later with the
> foliation (which is entirely deformation-induced). If the angle
> between foliation and sedimentary layering isn't that great, for the
> purpose of this discussion you can take them as being the same.
> In any case, the sheet silicate orientation define the one big
> characteristic property of the rock.
By "the rock", do you mean the KRS in particular, or are you
making a generic reference to metamorphic rock?
If the former, I might be moved to argue that jointing, and/or
cleavage, has been more influential upon its shape and splittability.
> > It's not the preferred orientation, because that is also
> >a physical property of the rock,
>
> Yes it is. Because we _are_ talking about properties of the rock. It
> is, in fact, nearly impossible to find a mica rock without preferred
> orientation.
Okay, but a direction cannot be
"composed of various mica minerals (muscovite, chlorite and biotite)
that comprise the matrix".
Yes, micas have orientation. I say, orientation does not have micas.
I still maintain that the wording quoted above is so confusedas to be
obfuscatory (whether intentionally so, or not).
Besides that, the subject of the sentence is (apparently)
"elongated detrital grains", which description I find it difficult to
attach to sheets of silicate minerals which had apperently grown
within the rock long after sedimentation of detrital material had
ceased.
As the preferred orientation is said to be a property of such
"elongated detrital grains", I can't see that the preferred orientation
should be interpreted as being composed of mica.
And besides that, the separate mention of "the foliation" would
better apply to the micas than to the "elongated detrital grains",
so until I see a completed version of the quoted sentence, I will
adopt the working hypothesis that
the "preferred orientation" does not apply to the micas.
> > also indicating
> >a significant direction of stress on the rock during metamorphosis.
> > It might be the elongated grains, but then we have to guess at
> >what words are missing to connect
> >"The elongated grains" to
> >"composed of various mica minerals".
>
> That goes without saying.
I'm sorry, it is not obvious to me what it is that need not be said.
Could you say it, please?
> Ever looked into a thin section?
eeYehhhhhsss ...
> The only other mineral that could line up because of shape
> elongation would be the first amphibolites, but for them
> the metamorphic temps were not high enough, apparently,
> or else they would have been mentioned.
I'm sorry: "only other mineral" than which mineral, please?
Keep in mind that I was talking about "elongated [detrital]
grains", not "micas".
I have not yet been convinced that "elongated grains" is
intended to refer to micas.
> > As quoted above, the sentence is unclear as to its meaning.
> > This would be an example of a style of writing that
> >is not indicative of scientific thought processes;
> >it also does not qualify for technical writing standards.
>
> No.
Would that be
"No" in the affirmative sense, or
"No" in the negative sense,
please?
> > Did you quote the book word-for-word, i.e. verbatim, above?
> > If so, that quotation might be evidence that Wolter's writing
> >has not been submitted to other geologically-minded types
> >for commentary, review, or analysis.
>
> I'd accept it, it is clear enough to me.
As above, the attachment of the epithet "detrital" to the
"elongated grains" in another version of the quoted sentence
renders your interpretation questionable, I'm sorry to say.
You haven't seen the fenders on my truck, have you?
I would accept that 'rock weathering in unadulterated Nature'
might be too slow to notice, for most rocks (pyrite being a
notable exception, as evidenced by holes eaten through
the bottoms of museum-fossil-collection drawers by acid
created by the weathering of pyrite).
> The question to be answered here is:
> how old are the inscriptions in the rock -
> 200 years or so,
> or 1000 years or so.
That question is simplistic. The null hypothesis is that
the inscriptions are little more than a century old.
I must consider that set of options to be a false dichotomy,
especially as proponents would argue that the inscriptions
in the KRS are less than 1000 years or so old, given the
reasonable assumption that
the KRS would not be older than the age expressed by
the date inscribed in the KRS.
More like 1000 - 200 years old than 1000, and even more
like 1000 - 500 years old, if you count back from the date
of Ohman's discovery of the KRS.
The only way to get an age of 1000 years or so that I can
think of is to apply the re-calibrated version of Winchell's
weathering-dating scheme.
One must consider mutiple hypotheses, but
the hypothesis that the KRS is older than it says it is
should not be included in the set of considerable hypotheses.
Rather, the question to be asked here is:
how old are the inscriptions in the rock -
100 years or so,
or more than 200 years or so,
or more than 300 years or so,
or 500 years or so,
or 600 years or so?
The lower limit on age is the time elapsed between now and
the date of Ohman's discovery of the KRS.
The upper limit on age is the time elapsed between now and
the date on the KRS.
The more-than-200-years-or-so-old age is a minimal interpretation
of Wolter's age estimate by reference to observation
of weathering of apparently dated slate tombsones in Maine.
The more-than-300-years-or-so-old age is a maximal interpretation
of Wolter's age estimate by reference to observation
of weathering of apparently dated slate tombsones in Maine.
The 500-years-or-so-old age is the time elapsed between
the date on the KRS and the date of its discovery by Ohman.
The only reasonable dichotomy to consider is that between
an age of a century or so and an origin date of 1362 A.D.
(or 1362 C.E., for those who do not follow Christian tradition
or who object to notions of domination by an invisible deity).
> I would consider the comparison significant because one
> biotite cannot weather 10 times faster than another.
Agreed, the comparison you have proposed is not significant,
but not for the reason you give.
It is also not necessary to limit one's self to consideration of
the differences between the rates of weathering of
different types of biotite in Nature; one should also consider
the differences between the rates of weathering of
different occurrences of biotite in Nature, and also consider
the differences between the rates of weathering of
different occurrences of biotite in Nature and
the rates of weathering of occurrences of biotite in artificial
conditions.
One occurrence of biotie may well weather 10 times faster than
another.
> >until more is known about rates of biotite weathering and
> >the various influences that may accelerate or decelerate that rate.
> > In either case, such a rudimentary sampling and testing procedure
> >can only produce preliminary results, useful for designing further,
> >more extensive or intensive research on more samples, but
> >the sampling and testing procedure utilised so far cannot produce
> >reliable and definitive results.
> > There are too many variables, too many unknown values, and
> >too few known constants to allow Wolter's extrapolation from his
> >preliminary results from observation of Maine tombstones to be
> >an accurate description of the state of the KRS.
>
> I think you are making it look more complicated than it actually is.
> The time involved is very short, from the biotite's point of view.
Well, the time involved is certainly short if it occurs within
the span of the public awareness of the KRS, and more so if it
occurs within the span of one man's lifetime, and even more so if it
occurs within the span of one man's tenure upon a particular plot of
land,
and yet even more so if it occurs within the span of
one man's attention to the problem of artificially weathering the
stone.
In riposte, I aver that I think that you are making the problem look
more simple than it actually is.
> >> "The average age of weathering of the three samples was
> >> 194 years, plus or minus 5 years."
> >> The three sample tombstones had "death dates" of 1806, 1805
> >> and 1815, yielding 197 years, 198 years, and 188 years of
> >> weathering in 2003.
>
> That sounds odd. I don't trust such precise dates. But then I know
> little about the methods involved.
The usual method is to go to the parish records and see
whether or not the death date on the respective tombstones
agrees with the death date recorded in the parish records for
the respective person named on the respective tombstone.
Then one counts back from the present date to the death date,
using toes as well as fingers if necessary
(and perhaps the fingers and toes of innocent former by-standers
as well, if the count goes above a score), to determine
the amount of years of weathering experienced by the tombstone.
Nothing odd about that method, if you're in the habit of
mistrusting death dates on tombstones.
But it's unlikely to be applied, because those who manage
parish records tend to consider such a habit odd in itself, and
especially frown upon the partial pedal denudation of the flock.
Altogether too highly abusive for most clergy, wot?
-
Daryl Krupa, a.k.a.
Apurk Lyrad (depending upon how seriously you take this stuff)
Daryl Krupa
>I have pages 34-39 of a Wolter's 2003 paper.
>said to be the same as in the book.
>p34
> The mineralogy of the stone, a metagreywacke,
> was comprised dominantly of most angular, fine
> grained quartz, orthoclase feldspar, and rock
> fragments. The elongated detrital grains exibited a
> preferred orientation that is sub-parallel with the
> foliation composed of various minerals (muscovite,
> chlorite and biotite) that comprise the matrix.
> The presence of cleavage, a mild foliation and the
> mineral chlorite indicate low-grade metamorphism.
> (personal communication, R.W. Ojakangas, 2003)
Hayabusa wrote:
<snip>
> The foliation in this case is the sedimentary layering,
<snip>
This is not necessarily so.
For one thing, the original sedimentary layering in a
billions-of-years-old metagraywacke might be difficult to
determine accurately.
For another, the original sedimentary layering
might have been difficult to determine accurately
billions of years ago.
And lastly, the foliation would tend to reflect
the direction of compressive force, which only
follows the sedimentary layering if
the direction of compressive force is
perpendicular to the sedimentary layering.
This is the case if the sediment is not folded or tilted,
and the compressive force is entirely due to
the action of gravity upon overlying material.
But that is not necessarily the case if
the sediment has been deposited at the active edge of
an early rudimentary version of a micro-continent
that has experienced more than one collision with
other bits of continental froth tossed above the waves
by volcanic and tectonic activities and the attendant
mountain-building episodes of folding and faulting and
burial and exhumation and rotation and submergence
and emergence and what-all that the KRS experienced
over several hundreds of millions of years before it left
its provenantial home, if Ojakangas is any judge of
such things.
Your equivalence of foliation and sedimentary layering is
too simplistic.
> and sheet silicates aligning with the foliation is
> common
> in such low-grade rocks.
"Common"? Damn-near "Required", in my books.
> He specifically mentions the cleavage as a separate structural
> element, so it is probably at a fair angle to the sed.layering.
Aren't you assuming that "the cleavage" is uniplanar?
Ojakangas refers to just "cleavage", apparently, which allow for
more than one plane of cleavage.
One could be "at a fair angle to the sed.layering", while another
could be parallel to the sedimentary layering, while another
could be parallel to the foliation planes, while another could be
at right angles to any of the above, etc..
The KRS has at least two edges that form approximately
right angles, so that two sides are approximately perpendicular to
the front face.
That argues for two cleavage planes at right angles to each other.
Yes, "cleavage" is mentioned separately from "a mild foliation",
but that does not mean that alignment or orientation or
relative rotation of a cleavage plane is
"at a fair angle to the sed.layering", not least because
"sed.layering" is a term of discussion originating outside of
the context of the quotation being discussed.
> >p36
> > The KRS is fine-grained metasedimentary rock
> > called a metagreywacke. The stone exhibits a
> > strong preferred orientation of very fine mica
> > minerals (biotite, muscovite and chlorite.
> > A second, less obvious preferred orientation of
> > micas suggests the stone was subjected to two
> > different metamorphic events. This two-directional
> > foliation of the mica minerals is a unique and
> > diagnostic feature of the KRS metagreywacke.
>
> replace mica minerals by sheet silicates, and
> the description is ok.
I would agree, except that "orientation" is related to
"elongated detrital grains" on the earlier p. 34 quotation
(quoted at the beginning of this posting). And neither
mica sheets not sheet silicates are "elongated detrital grains".
The description in the p. 36 quotation is contradictory, and
the 20003 report is therefore internally inconsistent.
The description is _not_ okay.
> The first mica fabric is
> commonly still due to compaction
> which continues from sedimentary conditions
> right into the very-low-grade metamorphic ones.
By "the first mica fabric", I will assume that you are referring to
"a strong preferred orientation of very fine mica minerals"
in the p. 36 quotation, above.
If so, yes, you might be right. But then again, you might not.
> Since he mentions a cleavage, that is a sign of tectonic deformation.
Is it, now? (Or "then".)
A cleavage can be parallel to a sedimentary plane,
or parallel to a plane of foliation, or neither.
Tectonic deformation need not apply.
> Thus I would take issue with the interpretation
> offered in sentence 3 if I were talking to a student.
By "sentence 3" I suppose that you mean:
"A second, less obvious preferred orientation of
micas suggests the stone was subjected to two
different metamorphic events.".
I'm not sure why mention of cleavage would cause you to do that,
unless the student was the one with the cleavage, and
you wanted to talk to her for longer than was absolutely necessary.
Metamorphic events are commonly the result of tectonic events.
I don't see the problem. (But I imagine that I could, if it was
explicated by you ... hmmmm?)
> The last sentence is probably correct anyway.
That would be:
"This two-directional foliation of the mica minerals is
a unique and diagnostic feature of the KRS metagreywacke."
Really?
How often have you heard "two-directional" in
a discussion of metamorphic fabric?
How did a lineation of detrital grains become
a foliation of mica minerals?
What is meant by "a unique and diagnostic feature"?
Does such a foliation appear nowhere else in Nature than
in the bedrock body from whence was sprung the KRS?
Given the three versions of what is foliated and what is not,
what is it that is "diagnostic", and what, exactly, is it diagnostic
of?
Seeing the convolutions and confusions attendant on Wolter's
writing on this matter, I would rather describe his descriptions
of matters KRS-geological to be less diagnostic than gnostic,
so I remain agnostic as to the correctness of any or all of
the three versions of his composition description available to me.
-
Daryl Krupa
"It's a virtual smorgasbord of food, at
Bill's House of Flat Stacked Thingies
That Evoke Homely Memories".
Daryl Krupa
Eric Stevens wrote:
> Daryl Krupa wrote:
<snip>
> > Is there any mention that they took soil samples from the
> >cemetery?
> > (I would be surprised if they did; cemetery managers tend to
> >frown on excavations by outsiders, however small the effort.
> >It just looks bad to visiting family members.)
> > Is there any indication that they knew the pH of the soil
> >in that cemetery?
>
> Daryl, you don't need to take soil samples away to determine soil pH.
> You can even buy kits to do this on site in all the better gardening
> stores. See http://tinyurl.com/d3njy for example.
Yes, I know; I didn't ask if they took them away.
I just asked if they took them.
By which I meant, "Did they directly examine soil samples that
they took out of the soil in the cemetery?"
They could well have left the samples within the boundaries of
the cemetery after sampling the soil in the cemetery.
I'm not suggesting that the investigators were grave-robbers.
> Yes, there is an indication that they knew the soil pH in both the
> cemetery and at the KRS site. They said they were different.
Doesn't mean that they knew the pH of the soil in that cemetery.
Just means that they thought it wasn't the same as the pH somewhere
else.
Could have been done purely from inference, without any hard data
whatsoever.
Thus, my questions, which could be summed up by the coverall
question,
"Do they show that they know what they're talking about WRT soil in
that cemetery?".
-
Daryl Krupa
Daryl Krupa
Eric Stevens wrote:
<snip>
> I might be able to make a more useful
> comment if I knew the respective pHs.
Eric:
You've read the book.
Surely Wolter told you what they were in the book.
So, what does Wolter say that the respective pHs are?
-
Daryl Krupa
Peter Alaca
> Peter Alaca" wrote:
Do you think that makes a difference for the principles
of lichen induced weathering and for the comparison of
the Maine and Minnesota stones?
Steve Marcus
But, the difference between slate and greywacke seems to have caused no
concern.
The point is that it isn't clear whether biotite degradation and/or removal
from greywacke can be measured in terms of biotite degradation and/or
removal from slate, when the slate and greywacke have been "sitting" in
different geographical areas with different climates and amounts of
precipitation, and the greywacke is alleged to have been underground for at
least 30 years in soil which might be acidic enough to accelerate the
"weathering" of the biotite.
None of the above says Wolter's wrong in his approach or his conclusions;
only that there are holes in what was presented that are picked up simply by
applying logic to the material. If the logic is inapplicable because of
some sort of geologic knowledge that I (and most other laymen) lack, then it
was Wolter's burden to address that lack in the book if the book was
intended (as it clearly purports to be) for laymen.
>>
>>And also, with an other view:
>>Irish Stone Monuments study
>>http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/publications/stone/conc.html
>>
>> " Patinas of biological origin were studied on
>> limestone and sandstone. Microscopic study
>> showed evidence of carbonate and quartz
>> particles being removed by the lichen and
>> incorporated into biological tissue in limestone
>> and sandstone respectively.
>> ...
>> However, biological coats also provide protection
>> against rainfall dissolution, wind abrasion,
>> atmospheric pollution and salt weathering. The
>> rate of particle removal by lichen can be lower
>> than the rate of material loss through the above
>> decay processes and agents, especially in the
>> exposed environments of the west coast. ..."
>
> This too seems to primarily focus on sandstone and limestone.
See above ...
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 17:37:33 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> --- snip ---
>
>>The KRS was discovered buried in soil that one might safely predicate was
>>a
>>bit "swampy" or "boggy"; that condition was used to support consideration
>>of
>>Runestone Hill as fitting the term "island" which appears on the KRS.
>
> Aren't you jumping to a conclusion here? The runestone was found on
> the side of a hill of 'glacial till'. Somebody (Daryl?) has already
> pointed out that the term 'glacial till' covers a wide range of
> possible materials but I am not aware that anyone has suggested that
> the particular site ever was swampy or boggy. As far as I know, the
> description of swampy/boggy has been applied to the conditions at the
> foot of the hill but not the hill itself.
LOL. Wasn't the argument that the hill was "this island" (as which is how
the inscription reads) because the land is boggy and swampy? Assuming that
the hill was not swampy or boggy, doesn't a rigorous analysis demand
comparison of below ground samples from the Maine tombstones with the KRS?
The authors seemed to think so since they clearly intended to take such
samples. They state that they did not do so because of a pH difference in
the soil between the Maine and Minnesota locations. If that's the case,
isn't the reader entitled to know what that pH difference was, and why it
impacted the originally intended comparison??
>
>>Do I
>>conclude from your post that burying a stone in swampy or boggy conditions
>>would not accelerate the weathering of biotite so as to impart a "200 year
>>old appearance" to, let's say, a 100 year old inscription that had been
>>buried for 50 years?
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve
Steve Marcus
They also said that when above ground samples were taken in the cemetery,
there was a foot of snow on the ground. And the ground was frozen. Do you
know whether those kits work in such conditions??
But, that aside, how does the scientist in you feel vis-a-vis the failure to
take samples as originally intended (one presumes they considered a
comparison of the below ground samples to be important), and the failure to
explain why the pH differences matter?
Steve Marcus
I think the value of knowing the respective pH's and the effect of a given
pH on degradation of biotite would be useful to even a larger extent in
terms of validating the weathering comparison.
Peter Alaca
1138858752....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
> My kinda guy, Chamberlin: born on a glacial moraine,
> lived to explain it.
> Me, I was born on a glacial lake, which was on a sub-glacial
> glacio-fluvial glacio-lacustrine jokuhlaup rhythmite deposit under
> a freshwater ice shelf over a glacial moraine, but you get the idea.
>
> -
> Daryl Krupa
I was born on a c. 5000 y old beach barrier
in the Rhine/Meuse delta, c 500 m above
Tertial marine deposits and c 20 m above
flooded Pleisocene glacial/fluviatile deposits.
bogar...@uwlax.edu
I was born in what was then a 40 year-old concrete
enclosure, located c30 m above a fairly recent,
horizontal, blacktop deposit.
You guys's Mommas were really out there!
Lloyd
*****
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: rgt2u1t88kk0bgh61...@4ax.com,
Yes, I suspect it will. While I'm no expert on the subject, both the
structure and the chemistry of the greywacke used for the KRS would
make it much less susceptible to attack than the structure and
chemistry of either sandstone or limestone. I'm not saying that
greywacke does not weather as a consequence of biological attack, as
clearly it does, but I would expect the attack mechanisms and their
rates of attack to be significantly different.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Hmm. While no doubt you will disagree, you are changing the subject
from that of the rate of biological attack.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:ass2u1pmq8mk9bm5k...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 17:37:33 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> --- snip ---
>>
>>>The KRS was discovered buried in soil that one might safely predicate was
>>>a
>>>bit "swampy" or "boggy"; that condition was used to support consideration
>>>of
>>>Runestone Hill as fitting the term "island" which appears on the KRS.
>>
>> Aren't you jumping to a conclusion here? The runestone was found on
>> the side of a hill of 'glacial till'. Somebody (Daryl?) has already
>> pointed out that the term 'glacial till' covers a wide range of
>> possible materials but I am not aware that anyone has suggested that
>> the particular site ever was swampy or boggy. As far as I know, the
>> description of swampy/boggy has been applied to the conditions at the
>> foot of the hill but not the hill itself.
>
>LOL. Wasn't the argument that the hill was "this island" (as which is how
>the inscription reads) because the land is boggy and swampy?
I don't know why you feel the urge to 'LOL'. Are you trying to
minimise my point? If you wan't to continue to claim that someone has
argued that the hill was boggy and swampy, I suggest that you get up
off the floor and find a credible source for that allegation.
otherwise it makes no sense.
>Assuming that
>the hill was not swampy or boggy, doesn't a rigorous analysis demand
>comparison of below ground samples from the Maine tombstones with the KRS?
No useful conclusion could be drawn from such a study if the
conditions are significantly different, as they seem to be.
>The authors seemed to think so since they clearly intended to take such
>samples. They state that they did not do so because of a pH difference in
>the soil between the Maine and Minnesota locations. If that's the case,
>isn't the reader entitled to know what that pH difference was, and why it
>impacted the originally intended comparison??
>>
>>>Do I
>>>conclude from your post that burying a stone in swampy or boggy conditions
>>>would not accelerate the weathering of biotite so as to impart a "200 year
>>>old appearance" to, let's say, a 100 year old inscription that had been
>>>buried for 50 years?
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric Stevens
>>
>
>Steve
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
I have no idea of what they actually did. If they used one of the
simple 'litmus paper' like indicator kits it certainly would have
worked with a pinch of thawed soil.
>
>But, that aside, how does the scientist in you feel vis-a-vis the failure to
>take samples as originally intended (one presumes they considered a
>comparison of the below ground samples to be important), and the failure to
>explain why the pH differences matter?
You are jumping to conclusions. We don't know what they did. As for
the lack of explanation, there is a limit to the amount of detail
which can be offered in a book of this kind.
>
>Just asking ...
>
>>>> > Eric Stevens
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric Stevens
>
>Steve
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
They didn't give the actual pH values.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
Of course there are diffences, also between
Minnesota metagreywackes and Maine slates,
and between different climates and between
different orientations, but the fundamentals
are the same.
What is the significant difference between
peeling an appel and peeling a pear?
Eric Stevens
wrote:
The fundamentals are not the same if we are considering the broad
range biodegradation. Presumably this is why Wolter focussed on the
narrow probalm of the weathering of one particular micro-element - the
biotite.
>What is the significant difference between
>peeling an appel and peeling a pear?
When I'm peeling a pear I have to do it over the sink to catch the
dribbles.
Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
Obviously you didn't read my entire post before writing the above sentence.
I was not changing the subject, but was merely pointing out that in the
sentence above mine, you stated that an article on decay mechanisms and
control methods didn't seem to you to be relevant to the KRS because the
materials "of primary interest in the article included sandstone, limestone
and marble" while greywack and slate weren't mentioned. In other words,
*you* introduced the idea that rates of biological attack seemed, at least
to you, to be dependent on what type of rock was being discussed.
Yet you seem to have no issue with a comparison between comparing biotite
weathering of slate and greywacke. That seems inconsistent to me. I invite
you to explain why those positions are not inconsistent.
>>
>>The point is that it isn't clear whether biotite degradation and/or
>>removal
>>from greywacke can be measured in terms of biotite degradation and/or
>>removal from slate, when the slate and greywacke have been "sitting" in
>>different geographical areas with different climates and amounts of
>>precipitation, and the greywacke is alleged to have been underground for
>>at
>>least 30 years in soil which might be acidic enough to accelerate the
>>"weathering" of the biotite.
Well, what say you? Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment expressed
in the above sentence?
>>
>>None of the above says Wolter's wrong in his approach or his conclusions;
>>only that there are holes in what was presented that are picked up simply
>>by
>>applying logic to the material. If the logic is inapplicable because of
>>some sort of geologic knowledge that I (and most other laymen) lack, then
>>it
>>was Wolter's burden to address that lack in the book if the book was
>>intended (as it clearly purports to be) for laymen.
You should be able to discern from the above two sentences that I'm not
condemning Wolter's work out of hand. I am merely:
1. Asking questions;
2. Pointing out that these questions should not have been permitted to
arise in a work purporting to adhere to scientific principals; and
3. Noting that the the fact that these types of questions remain should
keep one from accepting Wolter's work out of hand..
If I'm wrong, I invite all attempts to educate me.
>>
>>>>
>>>>And also, with an other view:
>>>>Irish Stone Monuments study
>>>>http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/publications/stone/conc.html
>>>>
>>>> " Patinas of biological origin were studied on
>>>> limestone and sandstone. Microscopic study
>>>> showed evidence of carbonate and quartz
>>>> particles being removed by the lichen and
>>>> incorporated into biological tissue in limestone
>>>> and sandstone respectively.
>>>> ...
>>>> However, biological coats also provide protection
>>>> against rainfall dissolution, wind abrasion,
>>>> atmospheric pollution and salt weathering. The
>>>> rate of particle removal by lichen can be lower
>>>> than the rate of material loss through the above
>>>> decay processes and agents, especially in the
>>>> exposed environments of the west coast. ..."
>>>
>>> This too seems to primarily focus on sandstone and limestone.
>>
>>See above ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric Stevens
>>
>>Steve
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Steve
>
Steve Marcus
Not at all. I'm simply trying to engender a discussion. The LOL was at the
caveat that begins the last sentence. Oughtn't we to know the answer, since
Wolter clearly knows what the pH is on Runestone Hill?
> If you wan't to continue to claim that someone has
> argued that the hill was boggy and swampy, I suggest that you get up
> off the floor and find a credible source for that allegation.
> otherwise it makes no sense.
I feel otherwise.
>
>>Assuming that
>>the hill was not swampy or boggy, doesn't a rigorous analysis demand
>>comparison of below ground samples from the Maine tombstones with the KRS?
>
> No useful conclusion could be drawn from such a study if the
> conditions are significantly different, as they seem to be.
How can you claim this without taking a crack at explaining why the original
intent was to obtain samples of the slate tombstones from below ground, if
those samples were of no value to the weathering issue, and why minds got
changed about that importance due to different pH values betweenn Hallowell
and Kensington. Don't you think that *if* an acidic pH accelerates
weathering, that it might be important to compare both samples of the rocks
being compared taken from below ground, and test the soils in which they
were found for pH values? Or do you know that being buried for 30 years in
acidic soil cannot possibly account for an acceleration of the weathering of
the KRS? If so, please cite the passage in the Nielsen/Wolter book that so
states.
>
>>The authors seemed to think so since they clearly intended to take such
>>samples. They state that they did not do so because of a pH difference in
>>the soil between the Maine and Minnesota locations. If that's the case,
>>isn't the reader entitled to know what that pH difference was, and why it
>>impacted the originally intended comparison??
>>>
>>>>Do I
>>>>conclude from your post that burying a stone in swampy or boggy
>>>>conditions
>>>>would not accelerate the weathering of biotite so as to impart a "200
>>>>year
>>>>old appearance" to, let's say, a 100 year old inscription that had been
>>>>buried for 50 years?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric Stevens
>>>
>>
>>Steve
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve
Steve Marcus
Eric, I'm trying to have a discussion here. I have repeatedly stated that I
have no firm conclusion regarding the authenticity of the KRS, but to date,
have felt that the evidence favored it being other than an authentic circa
1362 runestone. Now, however, there is no evidence in the form of a rather
large book that purports to advance evidence, both geological and
linguistic, that would tilt the balance in favor of "authentic."
The authors stated that they intended to take a sample of the slate
tombstones from below ground. Presumably, this was of some importance,
since the entire KRS was, when found, below ground. They further stated
that no such samples were taken at the time that they took the above ground
samples, because the ground was frozen and covered by a foot of snow. Yet
you now hypothesize that they dug through the snow, secured some frozen
ground and thawed it to test pH. Why then, didn't they also take a below
ground sample of the tombstone?
>>
>>But, that aside, how does the scientist in you feel vis-a-vis the failure
>>to
>>take samples as originally intended (one presumes they considered a
>>comparison of the below ground samples to be important), and the failure
>>to
>>explain why the pH differences matter?
>
> You are jumping to conclusions. We don't know what they did.
My G-d man, they've written a 519 page book, exclusive of Acknowledgements,
Preface, Introduction, Index, Bibliography and References, and Index of
Photos and Illustrations, in which they claim new and definitive evidence to
support their conclusion, and "we don't know what they did?" Shouldn't we
be able to "know what they did" by reading the book???
> As for
> the lack of explanation, there is a limit to the amount of detail
> which can be offered in a book of this kind.
Why?
>>
>>Just asking ...
>>
>>>>> > Eric Stevens
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
Of course they are different! You don't need to know any geology to
know that. Just look around at the difference in the rate of
degradation of granite and sandstone buildings for example.
>
>Yet you seem to have no issue with a comparison between comparing biotite
>weathering of slate and greywacke. That seems inconsistent to me. I invite
>you to explain why those positions are not inconsistent.
Biotite is biotite, no matter what the matrix in which it is embedded.
>
>>>
>>>The point is that it isn't clear whether biotite degradation and/or
>>>removal
>>>from greywacke can be measured in terms of biotite degradation and/or
>>>removal from slate, when the slate and greywacke have been "sitting" in
>>>different geographical areas with different climates and amounts of
>>>precipitation, and the greywacke is alleged to have been underground for
>>>at
>>>least 30 years in soil which might be acidic enough to accelerate the
>>>"weathering" of the biotite.
>
>Well, what say you? Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment expressed
>in the above sentence?
You might not have noticed. I made no comment.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
What is there about a discussion of your claim that the hill was
swampy or boggy that justifies a switch to a discussion of the pH?
>
>> If you wan't to continue to claim that someone has
>> argued that the hill was boggy and swampy, I suggest that you get up
>> off the floor and find a credible source for that allegation.
>> otherwise it makes no sense.
>
>I feel otherwise.
So, you are prepared to introduce the claim that the hill was swampy
and boggy without you being under any obligation to introduce evidence
to that effect. We are not discussing a work of fiction you know. I
suggest you apply the same standards of evidence to yourself that you
generally requite of others.
>
>>
>>>Assuming that
>>>the hill was not swampy or boggy, doesn't a rigorous analysis demand
>>>comparison of below ground samples from the Maine tombstones with the KRS?
>>
>> No useful conclusion could be drawn from such a study if the
>> conditions are significantly different, as they seem to be.
>
>How can you claim this without taking a crack at explaining why the original
>intent was to obtain samples of the slate tombstones from below ground, if
>those samples were of no value to the weathering issue, and why minds got
>changed about that importance due to different pH values betweenn Hallowell
>and Kensington.
>Don't you think that *if* an acidic pH accelerates
>weathering, that it might be important to compare both samples of the rocks
>being compared taken from below ground, and test the soils in which they
>were found for pH values? Or do you know that being buried for 30 years in
>acidic soil cannot possibly account for an acceleration of the weathering of
>the KRS? If so, please cite the passage in the Nielsen/Wolter book that so
>states.
We don't know the pH values.
We don't know which is the more acid soil.
I agree it would be nice to know this but it is one of the many items
of technical information which the authors omitted from what was
intended to be a book rebutting the idea that the KRS was a forgery.
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
I'm not hypothesizing. I'm answering your (hypothetical?) question
about whether or not soil pH testing kits would work in those
conditions. I prefaced my answer by saying that I don't know what they
actually did but explained that 'indicator' type kits could be used
even if the soil sample was initially frozen. I have no idea about the
cheap garden probe type instruments but suspect they might have
trouble.
>Why then, didn't they also take a below
>ground sample of the tombstone?
>
>>>
>>>But, that aside, how does the scientist in you feel vis-a-vis the failure
>>>to
>>>take samples as originally intended (one presumes they considered a
>>>comparison of the below ground samples to be important), and the failure
>>>to
>>>explain why the pH differences matter?
>>
>> You are jumping to conclusions. We don't know what they did.
>
>My G-d man, they've written a 519 page book, exclusive of Acknowledgements,
>Preface, Introduction, Index, Bibliography and References, and Index of
>Photos and Illustrations, in which they claim new and definitive evidence to
>support their conclusion, and "we don't know what they did?" Shouldn't we
>be able to "know what they did" by reading the book???
Not everything. I've never read a technical paper yet where I've
learned the full methodology. I don't see why a book of this kind
should be any different.
>
>> As for
>> the lack of explanation, there is a limit to the amount of detail
>> which can be offered in a book of this kind.
>
>Why?
Keeping the attention of the reader for one thing.
Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
Biotite is not biotite no matter what. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/cd7be37e5eca5544?dmode=source&hl=en
or
See also: http://www.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/biotite/biotite.htm
and
http://www.galleries.com/scripts/item.exe?LIST+Minerals+Silicates+Biotite
I imagine that the rate at which a biotite sheet would weather (or at least
completely weather away) *might* well be dependent on the thickness of the
sheet and the type of rock in which the sheet is "embedded". Do you know
differently? I would like to be educated.
>>
>>>>
>>>>The point is that it isn't clear whether biotite degradation and/or
>>>>removal
>>>>from greywacke can be measured in terms of biotite degradation and/or
>>>>removal from slate, when the slate and greywacke have been "sitting" in
>>>>different geographical areas with different climates and amounts of
>>>>precipitation, and the greywacke is alleged to have been underground for
>>>>at
>>>>least 30 years in soil which might be acidic enough to accelerate the
>>>>"weathering" of the biotite.
>>
>>Well, what say you? Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment expressed
>>in the above sentence?
>
> You might not have noticed. I made no comment.
I did notice. That's why I again invited comment. With all due respect to
the linguistic evidence in the book (which I'm goind through very careful,
taking notes), the key evidence in establishing the age (or range of age)
for the KRS will be geologic. It would be nice to be able to accept Wolter's
work as definitive. So far, there appear to be issues with doing that? Do
you agree or not?
Steve
Steve Marcus
First, let me preface this post with noting that you are the one who always
takes a position that questions must always be asked and answered, even when
evidence tilts strongly in one direction. You are constantly going on about
how you do this in the course of working in your professional capacity.
Your foot dragging on this sort of issue is, quite frankly, very telling.
Now I'll lay it out for you very simply:
1. The authors state that they originally intended to take below ground
samples of the tombstones.
2. From this I infer that they originally intended to compare those samples
with the above ground samples and with the KRS (which the authors believe to
have spent at least 30 years below ground).
3. From this I infer that the authors felt that there was some value to
making that comparison.
4. The authors did not take those samples due to the fact that the ground
in which the tombstones were embedded was frozen and covered in a foot of
snow.
5. The authors subsequently changed their minds about collecting the below
ground samples because of "the difference in pH of the soil in Hallowell,
Maine (?? do they mean in the cemetery located in Hallowell) and the
Kensington Rune Stone discovery site." Page 39.
6. The data by which the authors determined that the KRS is at least 200
years old had to do with the weathering of biotite.
7. The authors state that the Maine tombstones showed evidence of lichen
growth and that acid produced by the lichens accelerates biotite weathering.
8. Bogs and swamps are typically acidic.
9. Runestone Hill is thought to have been an island surrounded by boggy or
swampy land.
10. Aren't *you* curious what the pH of the soil in which the slate
tombstones were erected is, and how it compares to the pH of Runestone Hill?
11. Aren't *you* curious as to why the difference in pH indicated that
taking below ground samples in Hallowell was no longer necessary?
If you answered 10 or 11 "no", why? I would like to be educated.
>>
>>> If you wan't to continue to claim that someone has
>>> argued that the hill was boggy and swampy, I suggest that you get up
>>> off the floor and find a credible source for that allegation.
>>> otherwise it makes no sense.
>>
>>I feel otherwise.
>
> So, you are prepared to introduce the claim that the hill was swampy
> and boggy without you being under any obligation to introduce evidence
> to that effect. We are not discussing a work of fiction you know. I
> suggest you apply the same standards of evidence to yourself that you
> generally requite of others.
Okay. Let's modify the claim by saying that the hill is at least adjacent
to land that, historically, was acidic. See the above enumerated items 7-9,
and especially the items numbered 10 and 11. Don't you think that they
deserve to be answered before one simply accepts Wolter's dating? If not, I
have to ask whether you're feeling okay, because your typical (and self
promoted) bulldog approach to tie everything up 100% completely, even when
the evidence seems 95% certain, suddenly seems to be lacking.
But Nielsen/Wolter know. Wouldn't you like to know too, given the enumerated
items above?
>
> I agree it would be nice to know this but it is one of the many items
> of technical information which the authors omitted from what was
> intended to be a book rebutting the idea that the KRS was a forgery.
Well first, it's clear that the authors have this data. And second, it's
but one of several omitted items that are critical to their conclusion.
It's no good saying that it's "technical information", thereby implying that
it doesn't belong in a "popular" book intended for laymen. People
interested in the book's topic are not confined to people uninterested in
technical science (even if currently ignorant of the details regarding
certain aspects thereof). If you are implying that the authors withheld
information that would have supported their technical conclusions, I think
that you ought not to defend them having done so. I know beans about
geology, but when given A+B =>Conclusion C, I have enough mental capacity to
understand when A+B don't necessarily imply C without consideration of
certain other variables, and I am not afraid to have the information
regarding those variables supplied, explained, and shown to C.
How about you?
>>
>>>
>>>>The authors seemed to think so since they clearly intended to take such
>>>>samples. They state that they did not do so because of a pH difference
>>>>in
>>>>the soil between the Maine and Minnesota locations. If that's the case,
>>>>isn't the reader entitled to know what that pH difference was, and why
>>>>it
>>>>impacted the originally intended comparison??
>>>>>
>>>>>>Do I
>>>>>>conclude from your post that burying a stone in swampy or boggy
>>>>>>conditions
>>>>>>would not accelerate the weathering of biotite so as to impart a "200
>>>>>>year
>>>>>>old appearance" to, let's say, a 100 year old inscription that had
>>>>>>been
>>>>>>buried for 50 years?
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve
Steve Marcus
That's an incredible statement.
> I don't see why a book of this kind
> should be any different.
If you can make that sort of statement about technical papers, then it's not
surprising that you can say the same about the book. Certainly, it was
better to include lots of pages of speculative history linking the Templars,
and lots of pages taking gratuitous swipes at folks for doing bad science
(notwithstanding that the authors ultimately concede that modern scientific
tools and much material that can be analyzed thereby were not available to
these folks), rather than supplying full details of the methodology employed
to support the conclusions arrived at in the book. First, rely on acid rain
and acid producing lichens to accelerate biotite weathering of the
tombstones, then note that the KRS has even more biotite weathering than the
tombstones, but don't reveal the data regarding the impact, (Nota Bene: *if
any*) that the soil pH in which one claims the KRS to have been buried for
at least 30 years) might have had on the rate of biotite weathering.
>
>>
>>> As for
>>> the lack of explanation, there is a limit to the amount of detail
>>> which can be offered in a book of this kind.
>>
>>Why?
>
> Keeping the attention of the reader for one thing.
Well, if one's point is to keep the reader's attention, then they had no
need to present all of the scientific material they did. Just write a novel
... If you are trying to persuade a reader that your conclusions, which you
have reached via scientific methodology, are accurate, then you owe the
reader the courtesy of telling the reader about all of your data and
methodology. Why? If your point was to persuade the reader, and the reader
is bright enough to see that there may be some caveats re the methodology
and, therefore, the conclusions, have you certainly have wasted your time,
haven't you?
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
Which didn't stop them from noting that the Maine tombstones were subjected
to acid rain and that there were also acid producing lichens growing on
tombstones in the cemetery (they weren't specific about whether the lichens
had grown on the three tombstones they relied upon, but it's certainly
implied), and that this would accelerate biotite weathering. It also didn't
stop them from noting that even though dated by inscription to about 200
years, the tombstones still showed some biotite, while the KRS didn't. The
material is presented in such a way as to get one to think: the tombstones
stood 200 years in an environment that promoted weathering, yet biotite
still remained while the KRS shows complete weathering of the biotite,
therefore the KRS is likely to be even older than 200 years when discovered,
and quite likely much older.
And they had the pH values, and they originally intended to take below
ground samples from the tombstones, but didn't because of the different pH
values for the Hallowell and Kensington soils.
All of which may mean nothing beyond sloppy reporting. But it certainly
precludes me from being convinced. And I'm certain that I'm not unique.
Hayabusa
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>> This too seems to primarily focus on sandstone and limestone.
>>
>>Do you think that makes a difference for the principles
>>of lichen induced weathering and for the comparison of
>>the Maine and Minnesota stones?
>
>Yes, I suspect it will. While I'm no expert on the subject, both the
>structure and the chemistry of the greywacke used for the KRS would
>make it much less susceptible to attack than the structure and
>chemistry of either sandstone or limestone. I'm not saying that
>greywacke does not weather as a consequence of biological attack, as
>clearly it does, but I would expect the attack mechanisms and their
>rates of attack to be significantly different.
Carbonates are not really the subject here, since the KRS is not a
carbonate rock. - Otherwise, the kinetics of silicates is far slower
than that of carbonates. What happens in days or weeks in carbonates,
takes many years in silicates.
On the human scale, graywacke and e.g. granite are pretty solid and
reliable. On a longer scale, granite is more susceptible to weathering
because it is farther out of equilibrium - it equilibrated at 600°C
whereas the graywacke equilibrated at 250°C. That does make a
difference. In either case, the kinetics are exceedingly slow. Once
you would notice weathering in a granite, the nearby carbonate would
be gone already.
fkoe
Hayabusa
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>> The KRS was discovered buried in soil that one might safely predicate
>>> was a bit "swampy" or "boggy"; that condition was used to support
>>> consideration of Runestone Hill as fitting the term "island" which
>>> appears on the KRS. Do I conclude from your post that burying a
>>> stone in swampy or boggy conditions would not accelerate the
>>> weathering of biotite so as to impart a "200 year old appearance" to,
>>> let's say, a 100 year old inscription that had been buried for 50
>>> years?
>>
>>For the effect of lichens and more, see
>>"Biodegradation of Cultural Heritage:
>>"Decay Mechanisms and Control Methods"
>>http://www.arcchip.cz/w09/w09_tiano.pdf
>>[300 kb]
>>(Lichens on page 6)
>
>I'm not quite sure that this is entirely relevant to the KRS which is
>made of greywacke which is not mentioned at all. Basalt is mentioned
>only once and then only in reference [103]. There is no mention of
>granite or slate. The materials of primary interest are sandstone,
>limestone and marble..
Well, it is - indirectly. Whether you deal with a graywacke or a
granite doesn't make a difference, their chemical composition is
roughly identical. The minor difference is whether you deal with a
quartz-rich rock ("acidic") or a quartz-poor silicate rock ("mafic" or
"basic" rock. The big difference is whether you deal with a silicate
rock or a carbonate rock which is certainly a class of its own (much,
much more soluble than any silicate). So if the study is restricted to
quartzite (= sandstone) and basalt, the assumption is pretty good that
you have covered the silicate field for the lichen substrate.
fkoe
Hayabusa
wrote:
Daryl: I appreciate your knowledge, and I'm glad there is more than
one geologist around here, but simply judging by style, I feel you
have a propensity to make things more complex than they are. From the
description, the KRS is a fairly straightforward rock (geologically
speaking). The properties are distinctive, and I believe, and I
suppose you would agree, that a colleague who is closely familar with
the region would be able to pinpoint the location of origin of the KRS
within a couple miles or dozen miles. With some experience, rock
fabrics are as distinctive as the grooves on your thumb. Here in my
city there is a shop with a floor made of marble of which I am
positively sure it can come only from one particular quarry in Austria
(1000km away)
> fkoe:
> I tend toward the submarine-avalanche-of-unstable-accumulations-
>of-unstable-continental-slope-deposits-derived-directly-from-
>rapidly-eroding-volcanic-highlands proto-melange scenario, myself.
fine with me. I have seen turbidite deposits (graywacke) in ultramafic
archaic sediments in Zimbabwean greenstone belts which are commonly
interpreted as graben structures which were only a couple kilometers
across. Except for the bulk chemistry, these were perfectly good
graywackes.
> By "the rock", do you mean the KRS in particular, or are you
>making a generic reference to metamorphic rock?
> If the former, I might be moved to argue that jointing, and/or
>cleavage, has been more influential upon its shape and splittability.
The krs. And I still think the layer-parallel cleavage is the most
characteristic feature of the rock.
>> > also indicating
>> >a significant direction of stress on the rock during metamorphosis.
>> > It might be the elongated grains, but then we have to guess at
>> >what words are missing to connect
>> >"The elongated grains" to
>> >"composed of various mica minerals".
>>
>> That goes without saying.
>
> I'm sorry, it is not obvious to me what it is that need not be said.
> Could you say it, please?
>
>> Ever looked into a thin section?
>
> eeYehhhhhsss ...
--- umh - excuse me for being condescending. I shouldn't have done
that.
>> The only other mineral that could line up because of shape
>> elongation would be the first amphibolites, but for them
>> the metamorphic temps were not high enough, apparently,
>> or else they would have been mentioned.
>
> I'm sorry: "only other mineral" than which mineral, please?
> Keep in mind that I was talking about "elongated [detrital]
> grains", not "micas".
> I have not yet been convinced that "elongated grains" is
> intended to refer to micas.
Whether or not, it doesn't matter because detrital micas are _always_
aligned with the bulk foliation (in this case: the sedimentary
layering). There are no micas with a low aspect ratio, and during
compaction they align even more. (They might be mildly chlorizited,
btw.)
I think that a geochemical study of the surface minerals, a SEM and an
xray diffraction of the surface micas should show if the micas are
relatively fresh or not. A difference of nearly 1000 years should be
recognizeable.
fkoe
Hayabusa
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>But, the difference between slate and greywacke seems to have caused no
>concern.
Regarding lichen or acidic soils in which the rock was embedded for a
few thou'years, that's correct. This is called chemical weathering, in
that case the slate is rather more stable than the graywacke. The
situation reverses if physical weathering is considered, i.e. frost
damage.
fkoe
Hayabusa
wrote:
>> The difference between slate and graywacke is: slate is derived only
>> from clay, or mudstone, plus perhaps a little fince quartz sand; then
>> heated above 250°C. Graywacke is a sediment consisting mainly of sand
>> and coarser grains containing all sorts of minerals (i.e. not
>> quartz-rich). If heated above 250°C you may call it a metagraywacke.
>> They are better understood genetically: clay is deposited in very
>> quiet marine environments far from the coast; a graywacke is commonly
>> produced if eg. a river delta collapses and goes down the continental
>> slope at the speed of a train, spreading out for 500 to 2000 km.
>> Necessarily all previous grain size sorting is lost in the process.
>> (If there is a storm in the Ganges delta and an island vanishes plus
>> people living on it, they may be south of the equator the following
>> day, plus 3000m deeper.)
>>
>
>This portion of this post makes it difficult to take your opinions very
>seriously. The previous poster did not compare slate to graywake; but rather
>compared the relationship between metagrawake and graywake to that between
>slate and shale; or more accurately still a transformational relationship
>between the one pair to that between the other pair.
'scuse me. - Please do not understand me as being facetious; but the
difference for the purpose of this discussion is in my opinion nil.
The difference between metamorphic and non-metamorphic would matter,
but the rock under discussion is already metamorphic. In my view the
problem is pretty much cleared.
fkoe
e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson
"Hayabusa" <pere...@t-online.de> skrev i meddelandet
news:kme7u1tdlnnav9o9v...@4ax.com...
That type of study was made and the surface micas showed that it wasn't
fresh or relatively fresh at all.
Inger E
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Yes, that's my understanding also.
I must say that as a complete novice on the subject I was much taken
by your reference to the equilibrium temperatures and can immediately
see their relevance.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
I don't know what I'm supposed to take out of that article which is
relevant to either my point or your refutation of my point.
>
>See also: http://www.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/biotite/biotite.htm
This more helpful in that it defines Biotite and makes clear that like
all natural materials its properties can be affected by the levels of
contaminants/components. In this case Fe.
>
>and
>
>http://www.galleries.com/scripts/item.exe?LIST+Minerals+Silicates+Biotite
>
>I imagine that the rate at which a biotite sheet would weather (or at least
>completely weather away) *might* well be dependent on the thickness of the
>sheet and the type of rock in which the sheet is "embedded".
I too would expect the rate at which biotite weathered would depend on
the thickness of the sheet but this could be simplified by expression
as mm/year. It would also depend on whether or not a surface
containing the edges of the sheets was exposed. The type of rock might
affect the rate of decomposition only if the decompostion products of
the parent matrix played a significant role in the decomposition of
the biotite. If the parent matrix weathered very slowly I would not
expect it to play much part in the decomposition of biotite grains
exposed on the surface.
>Do you know
>differently? I would like to be educated.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The point is that it isn't clear whether biotite degradation and/or
>>>>>removal
>>>>>from greywacke can be measured in terms of biotite degradation and/or
>>>>>removal from slate, when the slate and greywacke have been "sitting" in
>>>>>different geographical areas with different climates and amounts of
>>>>>precipitation, and the greywacke is alleged to have been underground for
>>>>>at
>>>>>least 30 years in soil which might be acidic enough to accelerate the
>>>>>"weathering" of the biotite.
>>>
>>>Well, what say you? Do you agree or disagree with the sentiment expressed
>>>in the above sentence?
>>
>> You might not have noticed. I made no comment.
>
>I did notice. That's why I again invited comment. With all due respect to
>the linguistic evidence in the book (which I'm goind through very careful,
>taking notes), the key evidence in establishing the age (or range of age)
>for the KRS will be geologic. It would be nice to be able to accept Wolter's
>work as definitive. So far, there appear to be issues with doing that? Do
>you agree or not?
Of course there are issues. As far as I can tell there seems to be no
precedent for the work he has been doing and one would expect many new
questions to be raised. No doubt that is why Wolter has restricted
himself to merely expressing the opinion that the age of the
inscription on the KRS is older than 200 years.
---- snip ----
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
One of the differences between us is that I prefer to deal with a
problem one item at a time while you tend to respond with a whole
cloud of issues. There is a term for this ...
All of this started when you wrote
"The KRS was discovered buried in soil that one might safely
predicate was a bit "swampy" or "boggy";"
The KRS was found near the top of a hill and I have never previously
heard the point of discovery discovered as either swampy or boggy. I
then suggested that you might be jumping to a conclusion here and gave
my reasons why. (see above)
You then asked me:
"LOL. Wasn't the argument that the hill was "this island" (as which
is how the inscription reads) because the land is boggy and
swampy?"
In another stage of this discussion (see below) part of this
discussion I wrote:
If you wan't to continue to claim that someone has
argued that the hill was boggy and swampy, I suggest that you get up
off the floor and find a credible source for that allegation.
otherwise it makes no sense."
You responded:
"I feel otherwise."
I in turn replied:
"So, you are prepared to introduce the claim that the hill was
swampy and boggy without you being under any obligation to
introduce evidence to that effect. We are not discussing a work
of fiction you know. I suggest you apply the same standards of
evidence to yourself that you generally requite of others."
At this point you introduce a whole cloud of obscuring issues - as
follows:
... and finally you got to the point where you in effect admitted that
you had no evidence to support your suggestion that the place where
the KRS was found was either swampy or boggy.
>
>Okay. Let's modify the claim by saying that the hill is at least adjacent
>to land that, historically, was acidic.
You don't really know that either. I have already referred to
http://www.agviselabs.com/tech_art/grdsolph.php which suggests that
the subsoil pH is likely to be >6 and possibly in excess of 8. That
is, it may range from weakly acidic to weakly basic. In other words it
is approximately neutral subject to the normal range of natural
variation.
>See the above enumerated items 7-9,
>and especially the items numbered 10 and 11. Don't you think that they
>deserve to be answered before one simply accepts Wolter's dating? If not, I
>have to ask whether you're feeling okay, because your typical (and self
>promoted) bulldog approach to tie everything up 100% completely, even when
>the evidence seems 95% certain, suddenly seems to be lacking.
We've already discussed most of the points of your question and I see
no point in going around them again.
Read my past posts.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
--- snip ---
>I think that a geochemical study of the surface minerals, a SEM and an
>xray diffraction of the surface micas should show if the micas are
>relatively fresh or not. A difference of nearly 1000 years should be
>recognizeable.
As I understand it, this is more or less what Scott Wolters has done.
His conclusion is that the micas (biotite) on the carved surfaces of
the KRS are _much_ less fresh than on the equivalent surfaces of the
Hallowell tombstones.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
Pick an example which you feel shows me to be wrong.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:36:10 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> One of the differences between us is that I prefer to deal with a
> problem one item at a time while you tend to respond with a whole
> cloud of issues. There is a term for this ...
Problem with you is that you always prefer a sideroad.
There is also a term for that.
>> Okay. Let's modify the claim by saying that the hill is at least
>> adjacent to land that, historically, was acidic.
> You don't really know that either. I have already referred to
> http://www.agviselabs.com/tech_art/grdsolph.php which suggests that
> the subsoil pH is likely to be >6 and possibly in excess of 8. That
> is, it may range from weakly acidic to weakly basic. In other words it
> is approximately neutral subject to the normal range of natural
> variation.
Where on that page you read that suggestion?
I read a different story
" The variability in soil pH found in many fields is
real and should be expected. Data compiled for
1997 from AGVISE Laboratories in Benson,
shows that 40% of the fields grid sampled had
soil pHs ranging over 2.0 pH units. 18% of these
gridded fields had pH values ranging over 2.5 pH
units (i.e. from pH 5.5 to 8.0).
In the glacial till areas of North Dakota, where
the average field pH is >8.0, it is not unusual to
find areas in each field with a pH of 6.0 or lower.
...
In northern areas, even when the topsoil pH is
less (<7.0) acidic, it is very likely that the
subsoil has a high pH (>7.0)(basic), due to the
calcareous nature of the soils in these drier
regions
. ...
In southern Minnesota, Eastern South Dakota,
Nebraska, Iowa and other areas with low soil pH,
crop production will increase when lime is
applied to areas within fields with low soil pH in
the topsoil. Soils in these areas usually have
acidic sub-soil. ... "
--
p.a.
Steve Marcus
Perhaps so. Yet in the case of the tombstone/KRS comparison, is there any
data regarding the thickness of the biotite "sheet(s) of one versus the
other? If so, I was unable to find it in the book. I imagine because it is
impossible to know what the thickness of the biotite was on either when each
was newly created. Yet, we are told that since the biotite is completely
gone from the KRS and the biotite is weathered away but still present on the
tombstones, the former must be older than the latter.
> It would also depend on whether or not a surface
> containing the edges of the sheets was exposed. The type of rock might
> affect the rate of decomposition only if the decompostion products of
> the parent matrix played a significant role in the decomposition of
> the biotite. If the parent matrix weathered very slowly I would not
> expect it to play much part in the decomposition of biotite grains
> exposed on the surface.
Perhaps so. See the material following "perhaps so, above."
But, even in view of your responses set forth above, surely that conclusion
is open to question absent additional data which does not appear to be in
the book.
>
> ---- snip ----
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
"Hayabusa" <pere...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:h405u1p8gdkh9j3ch...@4ax.com...
Thanks for the information. Is the answer the same if we are talking about
200 years or less? That is, would being buried in acidic soil for 30 or so
years accelerate the rate of "weathering away" or erosion of the biotite in
a rock that was buried versus a rock that wasn't, and would that difference
be noticable?
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
>
> fkoe
Hayabusa
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>In other words,
>>*you* introduced the idea that rates of biological attack seemed, at least
>>to you, to be dependent on what type of rock was being discussed.
>
>Of course they are different! You don't need to know any geology to
>know that. Just look around at the difference in the rate of
>degradation of granite and sandstone buildings for example.
That is due to the feldspar, not the micas. Commonly there is little
feldspar in the sandstones, and if there is, it is albite (Na-spar) or
K-spar. They are fairly stable. The Ca-rich feldspars in granite are
more susceptible to weathering. Besides, the granite has fairly large
grain boundaries so the rock behaves like a coarse mesh; the sandstone
behaves like a fine mesh. But this has nothing to do with the micas.
>>You should be able to discern from the above two sentences that I'm not
>>condemning Wolter's work out of hand. I am merely:
>>
>>1. Asking questions;
>>
>>2. Pointing out that these questions should not have been permitted to
>>arise in a work purporting to adhere to scientific principals; and
>>
>>3. Noting that the the fact that these types of questions remain should
>>keep one from accepting Wolter's work out of hand..
>>
>>If I'm wrong, I invite all attempts to educate me.
That's fair.
fkoe
Hayabusa
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Biotite is biotite, no matter what the matrix in which it is embedded.
>
>Biotite is not biotite no matter what. See:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/cd7be37e5eca5544?dmode=source&hl=en
That's my quote. - Look there is a difference between igneous and
metamorphic biotite. (Biotite has a Fe- and an Mg-end member. The
lower the temps during generation the higher the Fe-content, and the
more stable it is during weathering. If the biotite in the sediment is
igneous and not pegmatitic (which would be very common) or else if it
is of low-to-medium grade metamorphic origin (which would be appx.90%
of the bio in sediments) it has re-equilibrated until 400°C or lower,
it is fairly stable (Bio in granites is commonly autometamorphic, ie
it has re-equilibrated during the cooling history of the granite).
Biotite is a very common mineral in sediments because it degrades
badly.
>See also: http://www.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/biotite/biotite.htm
These are pegmatite specimens.
>I imagine that the rate at which a biotite sheet would weather (or at least
>completely weather away) *might* well be dependent on the thickness of the
>sheet and the type of rock in which the sheet is "embedded". Do you know
>differently? I would like to be educated.
fkoe
Steve Marcus
Sorry, you're incorrect. This started when someone posted Peter posted
information re decay and control mechansims and you argued that his article
dealt with rocks other than granite or slate, and I asked why you felt that
it didn't matter that Wolter was comparing greywacke to slate in order to
date the greywacke. My posts re acid encouraging biotite erosion (which is
stated in the book itself) preceeded my posts vis-a-vis comparing biotite
erosion on two different types of rock.
>
> The KRS was found near the top of a hill and I have never previously
> heard the point of discovery discovered as either swampy or boggy.
Blegen, for example has it that the KRS was discovered on a knoll "above
swampy ground." The issue is whether the knoll itself has acidic soil,
which may be a result of mechanisms associated with the swampy ground. It's
not as though we are discussing finding the KRS at a 1,000 foot elevation
above a swamp.
> I
> then suggested that you might be jumping to a conclusion here and gave
> my reasons why. (see above)
>
> You then asked me:
>
> "LOL. Wasn't the argument that the hill was "this island" (as which
> is how the inscription reads) because the land is boggy and
> swampy?"
>
> In another stage of this discussion (see below) part of this
> discussion I wrote:
>
> If you wan't to continue to claim that someone has
> argued that the hill was boggy and swampy, I suggest that you get up
> off the floor and find a credible source for that allegation.
> otherwise it makes no sense."
>
> You responded:
>
> "I feel otherwise."
>
> I in turn replied:
>
> "So, you are prepared to introduce the claim that the hill was
> swampy and boggy without you being under any obligation to
> introduce evidence to that effect. We are not discussing a work
> of fiction you know. I suggest you apply the same standards of
> evidence to yourself that you generally requite of others."
>
> At this point you introduce a whole cloud of obscuring issues - as
> follows:
No. At this point I introduced the following:
"7. The authors state that the Maine tombstones showed evidence of lichen
growth and that acid produced by the lichens accelerates biotite weathering.
8. Bogs and swamps are typically acidic.
9. Runestone Hill is thought to have been an island surrounded by boggy or
swampy land.
10. Aren't *you* curious what the pH of the soil in which the slate
tombstones were erected is, and how it compares to the pH of Runestone
Hill?" and then later stated:
"Let's modify the claim by saying that the hill is at least adjacent to land
that, historically, was acidic."
>>
But, nevertheless, the question remains. For example, is precipitation in
the area typically acidic as a result of evaporation off the swamp being
acidic? I don't know. You apparently don't want to know. More to the
point, Wolter apparently does know the pH of the soil in which the KRS was
buried. But he isn't telling, at least not in the book. Your explanation
is that he didn't want to put his readers to sleep. As Bob Dylan wrote,
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
>>
>>Okay. Let's modify the claim by saying that the hill is at least adjacent
>>to land that, historically, was acidic.
>
> You don't really know that either. I have already referred to
> http://www.agviselabs.com/tech_art/grdsolph.php which suggests that
> the subsoil pH is likely to be >6 and possibly in excess of 8.
I read the page, and it says nothing about the soil pH in Kensington, or of
Runestone Hill.
> That
> is, it may range from weakly acidic to weakly basic. In other words it
> is approximately neutral subject to the normal range of natural
> variation.
Try a google search on swamps and bogs and pH. Then reread your page
wherein it's stated:
"In the glacial till areas of North Dakota, where the average field pH is
>8.0, it is not unusual to find areas in each field with a pH of 6.0 or
lower." Didn't you tell me that Kensington's soil is "glacial till"?
>
>>See the above enumerated items 7-9,
>>and especially the items numbered 10 and 11. Don't you think that they
>>deserve to be answered before one simply accepts Wolter's dating? If not,
>>I
>>have to ask whether you're feeling okay, because your typical (and self
>>promoted) bulldog approach to tie everything up 100% completely, even when
>>the evidence seems 95% certain, suddenly seems to be lacking.
>
> We've already discussed most of the points of your question and I see
> no point in going around them again.
Undoubtedly others will see the point, even if you refuse to acknowledge
that you do.
They don't answer the question. It seems that you don't care that Wolter
hasn't given you all of the data to support his conclusions, even where it
is indicated in the book that the data was initially thought to be
important. Again, "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind
blows."
>>>
>>> I agree it would be nice to know this but it is one of the many items
>>> of technical information which the authors omitted from what was
>>> intended to be a book rebutting the idea that the KRS was a forgery.
>>
>>Well first, it's clear that the authors have this data. And second, it's
>>but one of several omitted items that are critical to their conclusion.
>>It's no good saying that it's "technical information", thereby implying
>>that
>>it doesn't belong in a "popular" book intended for laymen. People
>>interested in the book's topic are not confined to people uninterested in
>>technical science (even if currently ignorant of the details regarding
>>certain aspects thereof). If you are implying that the authors withheld
>>information that would have supported their technical conclusions, I think
>>that you ought not to defend them having done so. I know beans about
>>geology, but when given A+B =>Conclusion C, I have enough mental capacity
>>to
>>understand when A+B don't necessarily imply C without consideration of
>>certain other variables, and I am not afraid to have the information
>>regarding those variables supplied, explained, and shown to C.
>>
>>How about you?
>>
Apparently, you lack the mental capacity to recognize when a conclusion is
reached based upon factors that don't entirely explain the conclusion, or
else you just don't wish to quarrel with this particular conclusion.
It's about time, isn't it, for you to "put me on ignore"? Perhaps that's
for the best, because there will be some questions arising re Nielsen's
linguistic analysis and the conclusions reached therefrom. I'm sure that
you will find those questions unpalatable too.
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric Stevens
>>>
>>
>>Steve
>
>
>
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve Marcus
Try the the Framingham Heart Study, found here:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/about/framingham/
>>>
>>> Eric Stevens
>>>
>>
>>Steve
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve
Peter Alaca
> [...]
> But, nevertheless, the question remains. For example, is
> precipitation in the area typically acidic as a result of evaporation
> off the swamp being acidic? I don't know. [...]
The answer is no.
Evaporated water is neutral.
Another question. How is it possible to get a
reliable sample from the soil where the KRS was
found? At least it is heavely disturbed, with a
mixing of top- and subsoil.
--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°
e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
news:43e3f8b1$0$21855$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> Steve Marcus wrote: wqREf.83950$4l5.15386@dukeread05,
>
> > [...]
> > But, nevertheless, the question remains. For example, is
> > precipitation in the area typically acidic as a result of evaporation
> > off the swamp being acidic? I don't know. [...]
>
> The answer is no.
> Evaporated water is neutral.
>
> Another question. How is it possible to get a
> reliable sample from the soil where the KRS was
> found? At least it is heavely disturbed, with a
> mixing of top- and subsoil.
Peter had you been reading some of the excellent works related to the
Kensington Runestone case from the first ones up to Wolter and Nielsen's you
would have known why it's possible.
Inger E
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca" skrev
>> Steve Marcus wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> But, nevertheless, the question remains. For example, is
>>> precipitation in the area typically acidic as a result of
>>> evaporation off the swamp being acidic? I don't know. [...]
>> The answer is no.
>> Evaporated water is neutral.
>>
>> Another question. How is it possible to get a
>> reliable sample from the soil where the KRS was
>> found? At least it is heavely disturbed, with a
>> mixing of top- and subsoil.
> Peter had you been reading some of the excellent works related to the
> Kensington Runestone case from the first ones up to Wolter and
> Nielsen's you would have known why it's possible.
>
> Inger E
It is not possible to uproot a tree and dig up a stone
without disturbing the soil.
--
p.a.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:09:46 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
><smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Biotite is biotite, no matter what the matrix in which it is embedded.
>>
>>Biotite is not biotite no matter what. See:
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/cd7be37e5eca5544?dmode=source&hl=en
>
>That's my quote. - Look there is a difference between igneous and
>metamorphic biotite.
Presumably neither the biotite contained in greywacke or the the
biotite contained in slate would be igneous?
>(Biotite has a Fe- and an Mg-end member. The
>lower the temps during generation the higher the Fe-content, and the
>more stable it is during weathering. If the biotite in the sediment is
>igneous and not pegmatitic (which would be very common) or else if it
>is of low-to-medium grade metamorphic origin (which would be appx.90%
>of the bio in sediments) it has re-equilibrated until 400°C or lower,
>it is fairly stable (Bio in granites is commonly autometamorphic, ie
>it has re-equilibrated during the cooling history of the granite).
>Biotite is a very common mineral in sediments because it degrades
>badly.
>
>>See also: http://www.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/biotite/biotite.htm
>
>These are pegmatite specimens.
>
>>I imagine that the rate at which a biotite sheet would weather (or at least
>>completely weather away) *might* well be dependent on the thickness of the
>>sheet and the type of rock in which the sheet is "embedded". Do you know
>>differently? I would like to be educated.
>
>fkoe
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:43:00 +1300, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>>In other words,
>>>*you* introduced the idea that rates of biological attack seemed, at least
>>>to you, to be dependent on what type of rock was being discussed.
>>
>>Of course they are different! You don't need to know any geology to
>>know that. Just look around at the difference in the rate of
>>degradation of granite and sandstone buildings for example.
>
>That is due to the feldspar, not the micas. Commonly there is little
>feldspar in the sandstones, and if there is, it is albite (Na-spar) or
>K-spar. They are fairly stable. The Ca-rich feldspars in granite are
>more susceptible to weathering. Besides, the granite has fairly large
>grain boundaries so the rock behaves like a coarse mesh; the sandstone
>behaves like a fine mesh. But this has nothing to do with the micas.
That's the point I was making. You cannot apply broad weathering data
for sandstone or limestone to greywacke, but you can apply weathering
data to similar examples of biotite almost irrespective of the matrix
in which it is embedded.
>
>
>>>You should be able to discern from the above two sentences that I'm not
>>>condemning Wolter's work out of hand. I am merely:
>>>
>>>1. Asking questions;
>>>
>>>2. Pointing out that these questions should not have been permitted to
>>>arise in a work purporting to adhere to scientific principals; and
>>>
>>>3. Noting that the the fact that these types of questions remain should
>>>keep one from accepting Wolter's work out of hand..
>>>
>>>If I'm wrong, I invite all attempts to educate me.
>
>
>That's fair.
>
>fkoe
>
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote: 45i7u19da3nl2b5n8...@4ax.com,
You are right. I seem to have mangled my paraphrasing. My only excuse
is that you didn't pick me up the first time I posted it. :-)
Nevertheless, the subsoil pH (for glacial till areas of North Dakota)
are likely to have a pH of more than 6. I should have stated also that
the _average_ is more than 8. That is, the soil is basic, not acidic.
> ...
> In northern areas, even when the topsoil pH is
> less (<7.0) acidic, it is very likely that the
> subsoil has a high pH (>7.0)(basic), due to the
> calcareous nature of the soils in these drier
> regions
> . ...
> In southern Minnesota, Eastern South Dakota,
> Nebraska, Iowa and other areas with low soil pH,
> crop production will increase when lime is
> applied to areas within fields with low soil pH in
> the topsoil. Soils in these areas usually have
> acidic sub-soil. ... "
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
You must remember that Wolter had newly fractured samples of both the
KRS and the individual Hallowell tombstones.
But you don't know the data is absent.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
You are fudging.
The discussion re sandstone, limestone ect vs greywacke is a different
sub-thread. In this patricular branch I have been trying to pin you
down and get you to give a source for your claim that "The KRS was
discovered buried in soil that one might safely predicate was a bit
"swampy" or "boggy";"
You have not been able to do that and now you want to pretend we have
really been talking about something else entirely.
>This started when someone posted Peter posted
>information re decay and control mechansims and you argued that his article
>dealt with rocks other than granite or slate, and I asked why you felt that
>it didn't matter that Wolter was comparing greywacke to slate in order to
>date the greywacke. My posts re acid encouraging biotite erosion (which is
>stated in the book itself) preceeded my posts vis-a-vis comparing biotite
>erosion on two different types of rock.
>>
>> The KRS was found near the top of a hill and I have never previously
>> heard the point of discovery discovered as either swampy or boggy.
>
>Blegen, for example has it that the KRS was discovered on a knoll "above
>swampy ground."
See - when provoked, you can provide a source. Do you really think
that this is evidence that the knoll itself is boggy? I very much
doubt that it is.
>You apparently don't want to know. More to the
>point, Wolter apparently does know the pH of the soil in which the KRS was
>buried. But he isn't telling, at least not in the book. Your explanation
>is that he didn't want to put his readers to sleep. As Bob Dylan wrote,
>"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
>
>>>
>>>Okay. Let's modify the claim by saying that the hill is at least adjacent
>>>to land that, historically, was acidic.
>>
>> You don't really know that either. I have already referred to
>> http://www.agviselabs.com/tech_art/grdsolph.php which suggests that
>> the subsoil pH is likely to be >6 and possibly in excess of 8.
>
>I read the page, and it says nothing about the soil pH in Kensington, or of
>Runestone Hill.
It does tell you something of the pH of the soil based on glacial
till.
>
>> That
>> is, it may range from weakly acidic to weakly basic. In other words it
>> is approximately neutral subject to the normal range of natural
>> variation.
>
>Try a google search on swamps and bogs and pH. Then reread your page
>wherein it's stated:
>
>"In the glacial till areas of North Dakota, where the average field pH is
> >8.0, it is not unusual to find areas in each field with a pH of 6.0 or
>lower." Didn't you tell me that Kensington's soil is "glacial till"?
I've already corrected that. This suggests that the soil of the hill
where the KRS was found will be far from acidic.
I don't want to follow you into the metaphorical swamps of you
hypothetical arguments.
>
>It's about time, isn't it, for you to "put me on ignore"? Perhaps that's
>for the best, because there will be some questions arising re Nielsen's
>linguistic analysis and the conclusions reached therefrom. I'm sure that
>you will find those questions unpalatable too.
Its not the questions that I find unpalatable. Its what you tend to do
with them.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Steve Marcus wrote: wqREf.83950$4l5.15386@dukeread05,
>
>> [...]
>> But, nevertheless, the question remains. For example, is
>> precipitation in the area typically acidic as a result of evaporation
>> off the swamp being acidic? I don't know. [...]
>
>The answer is no.
>Evaporated water is neutral.
>
>Another question. How is it possible to get a
>reliable sample from the soil where the KRS was
>found? At least it is heavely disturbed, with a
>mixing of top- and subsoil.
It's been forest (of a kind - I don't know what else to call it), then
farmland and now its a park.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
"The researchers recruited 5,209 men and women between the ages of
30 and 62 from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts, (Table 1) and
began the first round of extensive physical examinations and
lifestyle interviews ..."
How did they select the 5,209 men and women?
"... that they would later analyze for common patterns related to
CVD development. Since 1948, the subjects have continued to return
to the study every two years for a detailed medical history,
physical examination, and laboratory tests."
Surely not all 5,209 came back over all the two year intervals? How
many did not come back, at what stage of the study did they drop out
and how did the study cope with their loss?
See what I mean? There are _always_ more questions.
Eric Stevens
Peter Alaca
But you still ignore "In southern Minnesota ... soils...
usually have acidic sub-soil"
--
p.a.
e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:i8p8u154ppdpt0mlv...@4ax.com...
Well it was a kind of an island in a small lake long into Medieval Age. The
land where the stone was found was more or less a swamp and that was the
reason why no one before Ohman tried to drain it and take away the aspens
and other trees. It called for hard work to be used as a farmland.
Inger E
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson
"Peter Alaca" <P.A...@206.nn> skrev i meddelandet
Peter,
how about reading works and articles where all this is made clear once and
for all instead of speculations?
Inger E
>
>