Kensington Stone & S. Williams: debunking went wrong?
Joe Pinegar
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in article <5qiqa5$9ka$1...@trends.ca>...
>
>
>KENSINGTON STONE: A DEBUNKING WENT WRONG? (Stephen Williams' FANTASTIC
>ARCHAEOLOGY and some of its fallacies.)
>
>by Yuri Kuchinsky\
Remainder snipped.
The Kensington Rune Stone has been debated for many years. Are you
familiar with the studies done by Theodore Blegen, of the University of
Minnesota and the Minnesota Historical Society? (His credentials are
impeccable, and the Historical Society is STILL trying to live down their
original endorsement of the Stone.) His book, _The Kensington Rune Stone
New Light on an Old Riddle_ is a careful analysis of the many facets of the
issue.
1. The obvious first question that comes to mind is why, when trying to
escape from a hostile band that has just killed part of your party, would
you stop to carve a runestone? Commemorative runestones from the viking
era are all over Sweden, but none of them claim to have been carved while
escaping from the event that caused the deaths.
2. The appearance and smoothness of the stone, as well as the sharpness of
the carving, argues for a much more recent creation date.
3. George T. Flom, noted and expert philologist concluded after study that
the work was modern, done by someone familiar with dalecarlian runes.
However, he asserted, with reason, that neither the word 'opdagelsefard'
(journey of discovery) nor the concept existed in the Scandinavian north in
1362. By interesting coincidence, Ohmund, the immigrant farmer who
discovered the stone on his land, was from the Dales and was familiar with
Dalecarlian runes. Furthermore, he was well acquainted with Sven
Fogelblad, an itinerant schoolteacher and .Swedish pastor, who was known to
know quite a biot about runes and owned a number of books about futharks,
runes, runestones, and the Dales. It is also reasonable to assume that a
Swedish pastor would know that Sweden had been Catholic in 1362. Flom's
analysis was subsequently confirmed by The Philological Society of the
Univerlity of Illinois.
4. There are many inconsistencies in the stories about the stone's
discovery. It appears to have been discovered both in August and in
November, by Ohmund (the farmer) or by his son or by his neighbor, the
runes were visible before the stone was unearthed or they weren't, and the
only records of the discovery are affidavits, written in 1908 (ten years
after the fact) and written in English that is demonstrably not that of the
signers.
5. Hjalmar Holund, the PR guy and promoter of the stone had real
questionable authority to have and exhibit the stone, yet a strong
financial interest in keeping it a popular curiosity.
And there are many, many more questions and problems that should cause one
to really think carefully before taking this stone as unimpeachable
evidence that a band of Vikings sailed in from Hudson Bay, either stored
their ship at the end of Lake Superior or portaged it across northern
Minnesota, snuck over to Kensington to be butchered by Indians, carve a
stone, and run away, without leaving any other evidence of their presence.
Searching for evidence has been a popular activity in northern Minnesota
for years, and so far, nothing has turned up.
I admit I have a deep distruct of Barry Fell, Frederick Pohl, and their
ilk. This distrust is based on my inability to make the same leaps of
faith that they do. I do agree that it is possible that some of Fell's
thousands of claims may turn out to be valid - even a stopped clock is
right twice a day. In case you think I don't agree that the Kensington
Rune Stone is authentic, you are right. There just seems to be more
evidence against it's authenticity than for it. In my mind the strongest
evidence is the internal linguistic evidence, and I don't see that that
will be overcome soon.
But if you're ever in Kensington, go see it. It is really neat, whether
it's one hundred or six hundred years old`.
Ellen Pinegar
Yuri Kuchinsky
KENSINGTON STONE: A DEBUNKING WENT WRONG? (Stephen Williams' FANTASTIC
ARCHAEOLOGY and some of its fallacies.)
by Yuri Kuchinsky
So what is really the truth about the Kensington Stone of Minnesota? It's
interesting that there seems to have been a lack of takers in
sci.archaeology recently to argue the case against its authenticity. So,
in order to compare various arguments, I've looked up now the relevant
passages in a notable "debunking" volume, a classic in its own genre, by
Stephen Williams, of Harvard University. (Stephen Williams, FANTASTIC
ARCHAEOLOGY, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991.)
I have looked into this controversy around the Kensington Stone in detail
by now, and I must state here my opinion that I believe it to be genuine.
It will soon be 100 years since the stone was found by Olof Ohman while
clearing a field near Kensington, Minnesota, in the fall of 1898. So
perhaps it is now fitting time to look at this unusual archaeological find
and how it was treated by the academic establishment.
Williams' hefty volume contains quite a few debunkings. Many of them, such
as the stories of "Sunken Continents", the "Creationist" mish-mash, and
the "Psychic Archaeology" stuff are quite valid and necessary. It is
important that researchers and interested amateurs should know the
difference between science and pseudo-science. But in a number of places
Williams in his zeal definitely oversteps the limits dictated by both
objectivity and the common sense. And here, his volume itself slips into
pseudo-scholarship. In particular, his treatment of George Carter is
rather unfair. His treatment of Barry Fell is extremely cursory, and, in
this case, Williams seems mostly to deal in insults and snide
insinuations (more on this at the end of this article).
Quite a few files concerning the Kensington Stone exist on the WWW at a
number of websites. (Provided at the end of this post.) The files include
bibliographies, illustrations, detailed analyses, and the like. So I don't
feel I have to go into great detail in this article. I include some quotes
from certain WWW sites later on, but meanwhile, here's a brief overview of
this unusual story.
The inscription, dated in 1362, is quite a disturbing one -- in fact it's
content is almost spooky. It reads like a desperate plea to posterity from
a group of very frightened Norse who find themselves very far into a
hostile territory, and a number of whose companions were just murdered by
persons unknown. They most likely thought they will be next, it seems, and
so they chiseled this inscription into a rock, to leave some memory of
their ill-fated presence in this bushland of Minnesota...
And to add to the strangeness of the message, the discoverers of the Stone
were... also Swedes (mixed with Norwegians)! One may understand how the
"debunkers" would have been licking their chops at such a strange
coincidence... Oh, never mind... And later on, Williams brings to our
attention some other strange coincidences associated with the stone, as
well... In particular he says, among other things, that
" ... in 1862, during the Indian wars that broke out during the Civil War,
a group of Scandinavians at Norway Lake, not far from Kensington, came
back from church and found ten of their number brutally killed by the
Indians." (p. 205)
Of course the inscription on the Stone also tells about 10 companions of
the authors of the inscription being murdered in the vicinity...
Strange... Williams also gives a couple of other somewhat unusual
coincidences associated with the Stone's message. I really don't know what
to make of this all, except I believe these things really cannot be taken
as a proof of anything. Just some of such things that seem to happen in
this strange "real world" of ours now and again...
In any case, to continue with the story of the Kensington Stone.
Great controversies took place around the Stone right from the time it was
found. Strong opinions were expressed both pro and con its authenticity.
It is interesting that in 1915 the Minnesota Historical Society pronounced
it genuine. (p. 198, op. cit.)
Williams basically accepts that the stone was found in the ground
entwisted in the roots of a tree. The age of the tree is in doubt,
according to him, but he accepts the stone would have spent at least a few
years in the ground prior to being uncovered. Clearly, Williams thinks an
intricate and convoluted conspiracy existed among the finders, the simple
poor Swedish farmers, to forge the stone.
Williams makes much of the discovery, in 1949, in a private letter, of an
early copy of the inscription that contains a large number of errors. This
discovery was publicized in 1951, in ANTIQUITY, by Erik Moltke, and it
created a lot of negative publicity for the Stone:
"Using the British journal ANTIQUITY as his platform, Moltke published in
1951 a strongly worded denunciation of the stone with the major force of
his argument drawn from Holvik's archival find [of the above mentioned
poor copy]." (p. 200)
A bunch of extremely suspicious debunkers believed that this early copy of
the Stone inscription was in fact not a copy at all, but a "working draft"
of the conspiratorial forgers! Williams also subscribes to this theory.
"It is not a 'true' copy; there are 'mistakes'. Indeed, when the copy is
carefully compared with the stone, at least a dozen differences are
apparent. How could this be? Perhaps it is a 'bad' copy..." (p. 201)
According to Williams, the "forgers" were working long and hard to get the
inscription ironed out before engraving it on the stone. The silliness of
this argument will become apparent later on when I will present evidence
that in order to get the inscription right, the bunch of semiliterate
farmers had to know much more about the medieval Swedish than any of the
top scholars of the day could ever know! In any case, this extremely
suspicious "theory" of Williams' is refuted in minute detail at one of the
WWW sites that I mentioned.
How unqualified these very unlikely "master forgers" would have been to
forge a runic inscription of such a grammatical sophistication is
illustrated by the fact that in the very same letter, where the "forgers"
were supposed to have been consulting with each other in private, its
writer, J. Hedberg, described the letters of the runic inscription as "old
Greek letters." (p. 201)
On p. 202, Williams discusses the educational record of Ohman, the
discoverer.
"Hagen [a defender of the Stone] tries to make the point that no one among
the discoverers knew runes ... but the facts are contrary to that opinion.
Indeed, some knowledge of runes was a common part of nineteenth-century
Swedish heritage..." (p. 202)
"Some knowledge or runes"? We're talking about a farmer with a few months
of formal education! Some knowledge indeed...
Now I will give a couple of quite strong reasons why I think the Stone is
genuine. First, I don't think the Lutheran Swedish farmers of the 19th
century would have ever known that the Swedes of the 14th century making
it to America would have been Catholic. (As the reading of the inscription
will show, the inscription contains a Catholic prayer to AVE MARIA.) And
even had they known this, they would have been quite unlikely to provide a
free plug for the Vatican for which they would have had few sympathies.
And, furthermore, the same AVE MARIA, the way it was abbreviated on the
Stone, provides an additional very strong indication the inscription is
genuine. This is explained in detail at one of the WWW sites. Read on.
Here are some passages from the statement by Rolf M. Nilsestuen, the
author of a recent volume, "The Kensington Runestone Vindicated", 1994.
His full "rebuttal to the critics of the Stone" is available on the WWW,
at:
http://members.aol.com/kensrune
His book is very well researched, it contains statements by eminent modern
runic scholars in defence of the Stone, and the following passage is quite
telling.
[begin quotes]
Ohman [the discoverer of the Stone] had a total of only nine months
"formal" education as a child in Sweden. His only book on Swedish grammar
contained the standard list of 12th century runes, but little else that
would have been of use to him in forging the inscription. [Great many of
the runes found in the inscription are not in that book, a very basic
primary-school textbook that Ohman had in his house - Y.] Yet to do so, he
would have had to know a long list of facts that were unknown to
university scholars until the 20th century:
* that the flowery, inflected word endings and plural word forms of
Old Norse had been dropped from the vernacular by the middle of the 14th
century;
* that a dozen runic forms not given in published futharks in the
14th century were in use at that time;
* that the pentadic decimal system of numerals was known in
Scandinavia in the 14th century;
* that the site of the discovery had been an island in a lake in the
14th century, something modern geologists still cannot be certain of;
* that the five modern English words also happened to be Norwegian
words in the 14th century;
* that in Scandinavia in the 14th century "a day's sailing" on
inland waters was 75 English miles;
* that the route from Hudson Bay to Kensington is marked by a series
of Viking-style mooring stones;
* that "havet" (salt water) lies within 14 "sailing days" of
Kensington;
* that in the 14th century, Roman letters were used with runes to
show special respect to the Deity;
* that the Catholic prayer, "Ave Virgo Maria save (us) from evil,"
was recited at funerals for victims of the plague (How likely is it that a
l9th century Lutheran farmer would have had such information?);
* that an expedition composed of Swedes and Norwegians, an otherwise
unheard-of situation, had been in North America in 1362;
* finally, he would have had to know that, hidden in the brush in a
remote spot by a lake 75 miles (one "sailing day") north of Kensington,
there are two large boulders with Viking-style mooring holes in them that
mark the scene of the massacre. Before the lake level was lowered in the
l9th century, they would have been in the water and would have fit the
definition of 'skerries.'
...
One problem with these people [the critics of the authenticity of the
stone] is that they get carried away by their own rhetoric and go
overboard, thus destroying any credibility they might otherwise have had.
To believe the inscription is a forgery, it is necessary to believe a long
list of things that range from the wildly improbable to the flatout
impossible, but that does not deter the critics from inventing excuses for
believing what they want to believe. The claims of forgery are built on an
edifice of unfounded insinuation that (1) all the witnesses to the
discovery formed a conspiracy to lie, (2) the medieval manuscripts from
which the evidence was obtained are unreliable, and (3) the long list of
eminent scholars who have provided the evidence and arguments for
authenticity were incompetent. I rest my case for the defense. Rolf M.
Nilsestuen."
"The Kensington Runestone Vindicated", 1994, By Rolf M. Nilsestuen
Cloth-bound in Norse red w/gold lettering. 203 pp., photos, bib. Available
from the publisher for $39 + s/h. University Press of America, 4720 Boston
Way, Lanham, MD 20706, or from the author for $20 + $1.50 s/h. Rolf M.
Nilsestuen, 5404 Woodacre Drive, Suitland, MD 0746-2297
[end quotes]
The following is the "Home Page" for the Kensington Stone. You will find a
number of other relevant links at this site:
http://www.sound.net/~billhoyt/kensington.htm
And now, let's get back to that AVE MARIA abbreviation. Info about this is
available at another website, linked with the previous one.
[begin quote]
Three letters on the Stone, AVM, pictured above, provide the sufficient
mark of antiquity to declare the Kensington Stone genuine. Keith A.J.
Massey and his twin brother Kevin Massey-Gillespie have noted that the
convention of medieval abbreviation presented in these letters is beyond
the reasonable ability of even the most expert forger. The details around
this Latin abbreviation will convince even the most hardened skeptic that
the Kensington Stone is the real article.
[end quote]
Basically, what the authors of this theory, the Massey brothers, are
saying, is that AVE MARIA, abbreviated on the Stone as AVM, provides the
best single item of proof that the Stone is genuine. The letter V in AVM
is inscribed on the stone in a special sort of way, with an elongated
right-hand part of the letter V. This is known as a _superscript_. Using
such superscripts in abbreviations was common in the middle ages, but not
at all in the 19th century. And yet only very few specialists on medieval
epigraphy in the world would know that this abbreviation is the right one.
Certainly semiliterate 19th century Swedish farmers had no way in Heaven
or Hell to know this... Read more about this, and see the images at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/keithngail
Detailed info is available from the same site linked at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/keithngail/ks2.htm
As I understand it, the consensus on the Kensington Stone is slowly
changing at this time in the positive sense. It is helpful to keep in mind
that the negative opinions against the stone were formulated at the time
when relatively little was known either about the runes, or about the
medieval Swedish. We know a lot more now. New research tended to provide
more support for the genuineness of the Stone.
And, more importantly, these negative opinions were formulated at the time
when any theories about early presence of the Norse in America were
considered _highly speculative_, if not outright kooky. Since Helge
Ingstad's discoveries in Canada, this is speculative no more. I suppose
Kensington Stone scholarship will have to factor this "astounding fact" in
slowly but surely. I'm aware of a rumour that a certain quite notable and
distinguished "debunker" (not Williams), who was previously negative, now
changed his position and seems to accept that the Kensington Stone is
genuine. One wonders how long it will be before Williams himself will see
the light?
Best wishes,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku
Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman, but believing what he
read made him mad -=O=- George Bernard Shaw
p.s.
Here's a note about how I feel Barry Fell, a controversial researcher of
similar subjects, now deceased, was treated by Willaims.
Nobody said Fell's historical legacy is problem-free. He was a very
unusual character with great many interests and an unstoppable energy. He
allowed freely that some of his claims and historical theories may not
stand as valid in the future. He didn't even care about it! Now, this will
be truly shocking to your true-blue super-careful academic who fears being
"exposed" as incorrect on even one uncautious claim more than the plague.
The true and amazing story of Fell and the archaeological profession, this
immense culture-clash, this War of the Worlds, still remains to be written
in all its winding and twisting detail. Williams didn't even scratch the
surface... (Interestingly, Williams allows that Fell's "batting average"
may be "an anemic .100, to be on the generous side" [p. 283]. If this is
so, then among Fell's thousands of claims there will be a few hundred
valid ones! One would like to ask Williams which of Fell's theories he
finds valid, but not a word further is said in his book about this...)
Yuri Kuchinsky
Ellen Pinegar wrote:
> The Kensington Rune Stone has been debated for many years.
Quite right, Ellen.
> Are you
> familiar with the studies done by Theodore Blegen, of the University of
> Minnesota and the Minnesota Historical Society? (His credentials are
> impeccable, and the Historical Society is STILL trying to live down their
> original endorsement of the Stone.) His book, _The Kensington Rune Stone
> New Light on an Old Riddle_ is a careful analysis of the many facets of the
> issue.
Yes, this book was published in 1968. Not exactly the latest word on this.
Why don't you deal with the arguments presented in the recent Rolf
Nilsestuen's book (1994)? He deals with these and many of the other
objections in detail.
> 1. The obvious first question that comes to mind is why, when trying to
> escape from a hostile band that has just killed part of your party,
> would you stop to carve a runestone?
What if they weren't sure what to do next? They may have been hesitating
about their next move. It doesn't take long to make a carving on a rock.
Why do you think they would not have wished to leave a memorial to their
fallen comrades?
> Commemorative runestones from the viking era are all over Sweden, but
> none of them claim to have been carved while escaping from the event
> that caused the deaths.
>
>
> 2. The appearance and smoothness of the stone, as well as the sharpness
> of the carving, argues for a much more recent creation date.
This has been dealt with by Nilsestuen. He gives perfectly good answers
endorsed by a number of specialists.
> 3. George T. Flom, noted and expert philologist concluded after study
> that the work was modern, done by someone familiar with dalecarlian
> runes. However, he asserted, with reason, that neither the word
> 'opdagelsefard' (journey of discovery) nor the concept existed in the
> Scandinavian north in 1362.
Well, this is really lame. Flom was writing in 1915! Really, you should
present more up to date evidence. All the linguistic objections have been
answered more than adequately. Specifically, 'opdagelsefard' objection has
been answered well. You can find this at one of the websites I've given.
> By interesting coincidence, Ohmund, the immigrant farmer who discovered
> the stone on his land,
You got his name wrong! It's Ohman.
> was from the Dales and was familiar with
> Dalecarlian runes.
This is incorrect. He was not familiar with runes. He only had a few
months schooling in his whole life.
> Furthermore, he was well acquainted with Sven
> Fogelblad, an itinerant schoolteacher and .Swedish pastor, who was known
> to know quite a biot about runes and owned a number of books about
> futharks, runes, runestones, and the Dales.
Yes, but in order to get the inscription right they had to have known what
even the best scholars of the day didn't know then!
> It is also reasonable to assume that a Swedish pastor would know that
> Sweden had been Catholic in 1362. Flom's analysis was subsequently
> confirmed by The Philological Society of the Univerlity of Illinois.
>
> 4. There are many inconsistencies in the stories about the stone's
> discovery. It appears to have been discovered both in August and in
> November, by Ohmund (the farmer) or by his son or by his neighbor, the
> runes were visible before the stone was unearthed or they weren't, and
> the only records of the discovery are affidavits, written in 1908 (ten
> years after the fact) and written in English that is demonstrably not
> that of the signers.
All these objections are typical "lawyer objections". What do they really
prove? That the Stone's discovery wasn't carefully documented early on?
Suppose so. But don't you think that part of the blame for this should
fall on the scientific establishment of the day who were too lazy to go
and to investigate when the discovery was still fresh out of the ground?
> 5. Hjalmar Holund, the PR guy and promoter of the stone had real
> questionable authority to have and exhibit the stone, yet a strong
> financial interest in keeping it a popular curiosity.
And what is this supposed to prove?
> And there are many, many more questions and problems that should cause
> one to really think carefully before taking this stone as unimpeachable
> evidence
And many, many more adequate answers have been given. Check Nilsestuen's
book or the WWW for answers.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
Sagamaster
> >ARCHAEOLOGY and some of its fallacies.)
> >
>
> Remainder snipped.
>
> The Kensington Rune Stone has been debated for many years. Are you
> familiar with the studies done by Theodore Blegen, of the University of
> Minnesota and the Minnesota Historical Society? (His credentials are
> impeccable, and the Historical Society is STILL trying to live down their
> original endorsement of the Stone.) His book, _The Kensington Rune Stone
> New Light on an Old Riddle_ is a careful analysis of the many facets of the
> issue.
I have a copy of Blegen's book. There are a number of places in it where he contradicts
himself. He also spends a portion of the book building up the stone.
>
> 1. The obvious first question that comes to mind is why, when trying to
> escape from a hostile band that has just killed part of your party, would
> you stop to carve a runestone? Commemorative runestones from the viking
> era are all over Sweden, but none of them claim to have been carved while
> escaping from the event that caused the deaths.
The stone makes no claims or gives evidence that those that found the dead were fleeing
anyone. The stone states that they found the men dead. Nothing more. It takes hours
to carve a stone; for anyone to think that the carvers did so on the run is ludicrous.
>
> 2. The appearance and smoothness of the stone, as well as the sharpness of
> the carving, argues for a much more recent creation date.
There are plenty of other examples of carvings (not just runestones) which have held
there appearance.
>
> 3. George T. Flom, noted and expert philologist concluded after study that
> the work was modern, done by someone familiar with dalecarlian runes.
> However, he asserted, with reason, that neither the word 'opdagelsefard'
> (journey of discovery) nor the concept existed in the Scandinavian north in
> 1362.
If you've been to the museum, then you've seen the facsimile manuscript from the King of
Sweden that authorizing the expadition to Vinland. Also, for every linguist or
philologist who says its a fake there is one who credentials are as good or better that
says its genuine. Orginizations such as the MHS and the Smithsonian have too many
political worries to be trustworthy in upholding the truth.
> And there are many, many more questions and problems that should cause one
> to really think carefully before taking this stone as unimpeachable
> evidence that a band of Vikings sailed in from Hudson Bay, either stored
> their ship at the end of Lake Superior or portaged it across northern
> Minnesota,
The stone says that the ship was left in Hudson's Bay (although not using that name)
with 10 men watching it. It was common practice from the Viking Age on (til the end of
use of ships that could be beached) to leave one third of the crew with the ship.
snuck over to Kensington to be butchered by Indians, carve a
> stone, and run away, without leaving any other evidence of their presence.
> Searching for evidence has been a popular activity in northern Minnesota
> for years, and so far, nothing has turned up.
The only evidence never found was the bodies of the ten dead. Since it is possible that
the bodies completely deteriorated we may never have that proof. There have been other
things found, mooring holes, an axe head, for examples. Other types of evidence that
could have been left behind, fire pits, food stuff, would have long ago deteriorated.
Any thing else that people might think of would have been removed by those that carved
the stone.
In my mind the strongest
> evidence is the internal linguistic evidence, and I don't see that that
> will be overcome soon.
As more of the old school scholars who have said it's a fake die off or fall out of
favor, more people who look at the stone in the light of more recent knowledge of
Scandinavian Language and culture will speak up.
However, since there is no way (currently) to go back in time to verify the veracity or
falsity of the stone, there will those who claim it a fake and those who believe it
real.
>
> But if you're ever in Kensington, go see it. It is really neat, whether
> it's one hundred or six hundred years old`.
Sagamaster
Will Flor
In article <5qjjig$9...@news1.rcsntx.swbell.net>, "Joe Pinegar" <pine...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in article <5qiqa5$9ka$1...@trends.ca>...
>>
>>
>>ARCHAEOLOGY and some of its fallacies.)
>>
>
>Remainder snipped.
>
>But if you're ever in Kensington, go see it. It is really neat, whether
>it's one hundred or six hundred years old`.
>
I agree - whether it's real or not, it's worth a look; however, the last time
I saw it it was in the Runestone Museum in Alexandria, not in Kensington.
Isn't it still there?
-Will Flor wi...@will-flor.spamblock.com
Appropriately adjust my return address to reach me via e-mail.
Hal
"Joe Pinegar" <pine...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>BIG SNIP
<<
>
>But if you're ever in Kensington, go see it. It is really neat, whether
>it's one hundred or six hundred years old`.
>
>
----------------------------------------
About the only folks I know of here in Minnesota who take this seriously
are tourism promoters in Alexandria, Minn., where the rock resides at the
Runestone Museum, not in Kensington.
Hal - Mpls
Donna Mcmaster
Somebody wrote:
: >But if you're ever in Kensington, go see it. It is really neat, whether
: >it's one hundred or six hundred years old`.
Ah, the darned thing IS in Alexandria, at the Runestone Museum, which is
conveniently located adjacent to the town's turist attraction, a large and
ugly statue called "Big Ole."
Another interesting thing about it is that Minnesota archaeologists don't
take it seriously.
Donna McMaster
Joe Pinegar
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in article <5qlgvk$a3u$1...@trends.ca>...>> The Kensington
Rune Stone has been debated for many years.
>
>Quite right, Ellen.
Okay, I guess I haven't paid much attention to more recent research, and
perhaps I'm a bit closed minded. (Heaven forfend). If I can find the book,
I'll give it a try and let you know if I change my mind. Deal? 8) BTW,
where do you stand on the vinland Map?
Ellen
Sagamaster
Will Flor wrote:
>
> In article <5qjjig$9...@news1.rcsntx.swbell.net>, "Joe Pinegar" <pine...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>KENSINGTON STONE: A DEBUNKING WENT WRONG? (Stephen Williams' FANTASTIC
> >>ARCHAEOLOGY and some of its fallacies.)
> >>
> >
> >Remainder snipped.
> >
> >But if you're ever in Kensington, go see it. It is really neat, whether
> >it's one hundred or six hundred years old`.
> >
>
> I saw it it was in the Runestone Museum in Alexandria, not in Kensington.
> Isn't it still there?
Yes, it is still in Alexandria
Donna Mcmaster
Hal (Sander...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: About the only folks I know of here in Minnesota who take this seriously
: are tourism promoters in Alexandria, Minn., where the rock resides at the
: Runestone Museum, not in Kensington.
: Hal - Mpls
Exactly. By the way, there are so many problems with the "mooring stones"
that they have become almost laughable. Some of the stones, and I've seen
a few of the things myself, sit up so high in fields that proponents of
this Viking saga have claimed that obviously the ice age had to be much
more recent than previously thought, and that 1,000 years ago the waters
only began to receed: they claim that therefore, the lake levels were then
high enough to account for the "mooring stones" on top of hills.
Not to mention that in the Minnesota lakes district, which is covered with
deciduous trees around lakes, it owuld have been ever so much easier and
faster to simply tie a rope around a tree on a beach than to send poor
Sven out alone in dangerous territory to chisel a hole in a rock up on a
hill. I think Bergitta Wallace is one of the Scandianvian archaolgists who
has written that mooring stones are used in Scandinavia in tidal fjords,
not pothole lakes.
Donna McMaster
Moorhead, Minnesota
Yuri Kuchinsky
Joe Pinegar (pine...@swbell.net) wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in article <5qlgvk$a3u$1...@trends.ca>...
: >Quite right, Ellen.
Ellen,
Yes, it's well worth reexaminining the evidence in this case. Much of the
info is now available on the WWW, so it's not like we have to look too
hard to find it...
As for the Vinland map, it's a different bowl of fish. What's so unusual
about it? It seems like a pretty rough map.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
Doug Weller
On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 23:52:59 -0500, in sci.archaeology, Joe Pinegar
wrote:
>where do you stand on the vinland Map?
>
I know you asked Yuri, but from what I know it's most likely genuine.
I'm sure Yale is pleased!
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-mo...@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email do...@ramtops.demon.co.uk for details
TRM
Doug Weller wrote:
> Joe Pinegar wrote:
> >where do you stand on the vinland Map?
> I know you asked Yuri, but from what I know it's most likely genuine.
> I'm sure Yale is pleased!
The last I heard the map was proven fake.
The ink was made from a junior chemistry set and aged with ammonia.
Judy Ramsey
Having just come into this newsgroup - can you tell me the background to
the Kensington Stone?
Doug Weller
No, retests show the ink was genuine. Not that I've ever heard of the
chemisty set idea, just that people thought the ink was too recent.
The following old post may help:
>(just a refresher on the argument of the map) There never was disagreement on the
>authenticity of the parchment, the argument was over the ink used. Originally, it was
>argued that the ink was modern due to a titanium alloy in it. Recently testing was done
>on the ink using more sophisticated tools, etc. than were available at the earlier
>testing. The ink was confirmed in a date from pre-16th century and consistant with
>other inks from manuscripts of known date. It showed that the titanium alloy was
>consistant with known inks. This has been printed in various sources as well as the new
>introduction to the republished book _The Vinland Map and the Tartar Relation_ [Yale
>University Press; 1995]
>Sagamaster <sa...@mn.uswest.net>
Sagamaster
Hal wrote:
>
> About the only folks I know of here in Minnesota who take this seriously
> are tourism promoters in Alexandria, Minn., where the rock resides at the
> Runestone Museum, not in Kensington.
>
> Hal - Mpls
There are plenty of people in Minnesota that believe the stone real. The memberships of
the Viking Age Club of Minneapolis and the Viking Age Club-Sons of Norway have a total
of about one hundred. These people all believe the stone real and with the exception of
about ten members, all live in MN.
Sagamaster
Yuri Kuchinsky
You may be right here, Donna.
The Stone defenders may have gone a little overboard with their "mooring
stones". If the Kensington Stone inscribers were on a journey of
exploration, there was no real need for them to carve out permanent
mooring holes. As you say, tying the rope around a tree would have done
just as well.
So, strike one argument for the authenticity of the Stone out. But there
are still scores of other solid arguments. Care to deal with them?
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
Donna Mcmaster (mcma...@news.msus.edu) wrote:
...
: By the way, there are so many problems with the "mooring stones"
Hal
And few, if any of them, are members of the scientific community.
Hal
Sagamaster
Well, at laest half of us have degrees in history or archaeology, but, yes, none of use
work in the scientific community. However that is irrelevent to what I was answering
to. You stated that only those in the tourism field believed the stone to be real. I
showed that your assertion was false.
Sagamaster
Hal
Hal <Sander...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Sagamaster <sa...@mn.uswest.net> wrote:
>>Hal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> About the only folks I know of here in Minnesota who take this seriously
>>> are tourism promoters in Alexandria, Minn., where the rock resides at the
>>> Runestone Museum, not in Kensington.
>>>
>>> Hal - Mpls
>>
>>There are plenty of people in Minnesota that believe the stone real. The memberships of
>>the Viking Age Club of Minneapolis and the Viking Age Club-Sons of Norway have a total
>>of about one hundred. These people all believe the stone real and with the exception of
>>about ten members, all live in MN.
>>
>>Sagamaster
>---------------------------------------
>
>And few, if any of them, are members of the scientific community.
>
>Hal
>
>
I don't think a group of 80 or 90 Americans of Norwegian ancestry
quaffing aquavit and celebrating the "glory" of lutefisk really proves
the stone's validity.
I'm sure that in southeast England you could find a small group of people
who still swear to the validity of the Piltdown Man, but that hardly
proves it's real.
Hal
Robin Reyburn
> >the Viking Age Club of Minneapolis and the Viking Age Club-Sons of Norway have a total
> >of about one hundred. These people all believe the stone real and with the exception of
> >about ten members, all live in MN.
> >
> >Sagamaster
> ---------------------------------------
>
> And few, if any of them, are members of the scientific community.
>
> Hal
As a member of said Viking Age Club, I can assure you the stone is
real. Legitimate, now there's the issue! I have always dodged the
fanatics by decreeing that the stone is really outside the purview of
the Viking Age Club, since the Viking Age is generally regarded as
ending around 1100 with the rise of the Scandic nationstates. The date
on the Kesington Stone is IIRC, 1362 or thereabouts, hence, whatever it
is it ain't Viking! My personal opinion is skeptical, runestones in
Scandinavia have the runes carved on staves, those curvy thingies on the
stones. This replicates rune usage in Scandinavia, where runes were
carved on wooden staves. The Kensington stone is carved book-fashion
like a modern text. YMMV.
Robin--
"There's a Time and a Place for everything...and this is neither!"
Sagamaster
Hal wrote:
>
> I don't think a group of 80 or 90 Americans of Norwegian ancestry
> quaffing aquavit and celebrating the "glory" of lutefisk really proves
> the stone's validity.
Neither does using ad hominem argumentation disprove it. BTW, we drink mead (which we
make) and no one eats lutefisk except under protest and only if they're Luthren.
>
> I'm sure that in southeast England you could find a small group of people
> who still swear to the validity of the Piltdown Man, but that hardly
> proves it's real.
Bad example. Piltdown Man was an intended hoax and one easily proved. After awhile the
perpetrator even admited to it. No such admission exists for the Kensington stone, nor
will one.
If you chose to believe the stone false, fine. But if you want others to believe so you
better come up with better arguments and proofs that are less than fifty years old.
Evidence found over the last twenty show it to be genuine.
Sagamaster
>
> Hal
D. Barrington
Sagamaster (sa...@mn.uswest.net) wrote:
: Hal wrote:
: >
: > I'm sure that in southeast England you could find a small group of people
: > who still swear to the validity of the Piltdown Man, but that hardly
: > proves it's real.
: Bad example. Piltdown Man was an intended hoax and one easily proved. After awhile the
: perpetrator even admited to it. No such admission exists for the Kensington stone, nor
: will one.
I have no informed opinion (but a lot of skepticism*) about the Kensington
stone, but you're slightly misinformed about Piltdown. According to a recent
book, _Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery_ (author forgotten because it's at home
but from Oxford Press, solid credentials for critical thinking and
objectivity):
1. The "fossil find" was clearly shown to be bogus in the 1950's,
2. The amateur who "found" the fossil was almost certainly part of the
hoax, but he died without confessing.
3. It seems likely that there was a more expert partner in the hoax.
Steven Jay Gould argued that it was Tielhard de Chardin, but
this book proposes that it was Sir Arthur Keith and makes a
pretty good case.
*the coincidence of a connection between Norse and Minnesota independent
of the 19th-c. settlement, when people close to those finding the
stone might well have wanted to establish such a connection, is
too much for me to believe without really convincing evidence.
But I am willing to accept that it's not currently in the "proven
hoax" category of Piltdown. Perhaps one difference is that Piltdown
passed into the "known facts" section of a major line of scientific
research, had implications unimaginable to the hoaxers, and got so
much scrutiny that it was finally disproved. The presence or
absence of Norse in 14th-c. Minnesota has fewer such consequences.
Dave MB
Joe Pinegar
Hal wrote in article <5qorad$3...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>"Joe Pinegar" <pine...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>BIG SNIP
><<
>>
>>But if you're ever in Kensington, go see it. It is really neat, whether
>>it's one hundred or six hundred years old`.
>>
>>Ellen Pinegar
>>
>----------------------------------------
>
>About the only folks I know of here in Minnesota who take this seriously
>are tourism promoters in Alexandria, Minn., where the rock resides at the
>Runestone Museum, not in Kensington.
>
>Hal - Mpls
>
Mea culpa. Apparently when I saw it as a kid it was on loan to Kensiington,
and I never thought to check whether it has a permanent home. I see that it
does <g>
Ellen Pinegar
Hal
No need for a "mea culpa." It's been an interesting discussion even if
there hasn't been a meeting of the minds.
Hal
Jan Böhme
Sagamaster <sa...@mn.uswest.net> wrote:
>Well, at laest half of us have degrees in history or archaeology, but, yes, none of use
>work in the scientific community. However that is irrelevent to what I was answering
>to. You stated that only those in the tourism field believed the stone to be real. I
>showed that your assertion was false.
However, none of you have a degree in Scandinavian language history, I
can tell. The language, as well as the runes used, are patently
incompatible with its purported origin, according to a completely
unanimous body of Scandinavian runologists.
But it's even worse: There exists a confession from one of the
perpetrators of the hoax. Below follows the English summary from an
article in the Swedish academic journal for dialectology and historic
ethnology "Svenska landsmål och svenskt folkliv", year1977, pp133-134,
written by Folke Hedblom, the noted Swedish expert in Medieval
ethnology:
"A stone slab with an inscription carved in runic characters was
'found' in 1898 on a farm near Kensington, Minnesota. The legend
stated that a group of Swedes and Norwegians had come to that place in
1362, more that 100 years before Columbus discovered America. Before
they returned to Scandinavia the travellers had carved the runic
message to commemorate their visit. The stone received considerable
publicity andaroused keen and widespread interest.
All the runological experts in Scandinavia who were consulted
immediately realized that he inscription could not possibly be
genuine, but must have been some kind of practical joke. However, th
specialist's opinion did not deter the local opinion, journalists and
others who, in books and articles, with naive conviction continued
their energetic claim that the stone slab was genuine. Indeed, the
Kensington slab became a successful tourist attraction.
However, a recent article in the journal Minnesota History , vol 45/4,
pp. 149-156 (1976) finally solved the problem of the origin of the
engraving. Just prior to his impending death a farmer, John P. Gran, a
Swedish immigrant, confessed to his son and daughter that he, the
"finder" Olof Ohman, the defrocked Swedish minister Sven Fogelblad,
and possibly someone more together wrote the inscription with runes,
that they had learnt from popular books and calendars, and then carved
them into the slab. This was told on a tape-recording made in 1967,
where Gran's son tells the story. According to him, the stone was more
of a prank than a forgery. Ohman is supposed to have said 'Wouldn't it
be nice o make some scripts that would bluff the people in this here
territory, and them educated guys?'"
The tape-recording in question is kept at the Archives of the
Minnesota Historical Society, if anybody wants to verify the article.
So:
1) The language used on the stone is impossible
2) The runes themeselves are impossible
3) The composition of the runes is highly improbable.
4) There is no mention of places in North America where we now _know_
that Noresemen have lived, which would have been the natural
departure-point for such a journey.
5) And finally, we have a confession from one of the prepetrators,
transmitted to us by his son.
My personall belief, based upon the above evidence, is that the
proposition "the Kensington runestone is auhentic" is slightly less
credible that the proposition "the earth is flat".
Anyway, it is perfectly obvious that the question of belief in the
Kensington runestone defintley has left the realm of academic
reasoning.
Claiming thet the Kensington runestone is authentic today is a purely
religious belief, and should be treated as such.
Jan Böhme
Yuri Kuchinsky
Jan,
Obviously you missed this whole long discussion and just now you are
betraying your lack of background in this subject.
You have given no serious arguments whatsoever and have made a number of
significant errors of fact. Your judgement certainly seems very suspect.
The sources you cite are outdated.
The "confession" you mention is plainly bogus. Perhaps you're unaware that
it was retracted?
Jan Böhme (Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se) wrote:
...
: However, none of you have a degree in Scandinavian language history, I
: can tell. The language, as well as the runes used, are patently
: incompatible with its purported origin, according to a completely
: unanimous body of Scandinavian runologists.
You are clearly and obviously WRONG about this.
...
: 1) The language used on the stone is impossible
:
: 2) The runes themeselves are impossible
:
: 3) The composition of the runes is highly improbable.
All of the above is wrong and frightfully uninformed.
: 4) There is no mention of places in North America where we now _know_
: that Noresemen have lived, which would have been the natural
: departure-point for such a journey.
This is plain silly. What, do you expect them to include the zipcode too?
Please get informed before you make everybody laugh at you... Your zeal to
"debunk" is matched only by your obvious lack of grasp of these issues.
Respectfully,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- Specializing in factitious editing
of other people's posts since 1997 -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku
You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Hu McCulloch
Jan.Bohme writes, concerning the Kensington Runestone,
>However, none of you have a degree in Scandinavian language history, I
>can tell. The language, as well as the runes used, are patently
>incompatible with its purported origin, according to a completely
>unanimous body of Scandinavian runologists.
>But it's even worse: There exists a confession from one of the
>perpetrators of the hoax. [snip]
Even Stephen Williams, who appears in the subject line of
this thread, finds the videotaped deathbed "confession"
too pat to be credible. He places more credence contra
Kensington in the Hedberg-Ohman "first draft" of the
inscription, stressed also by Erik Moltke, Antiquity,
1951. Pete Sjolander has placed what appears to be an
accurate 1940's newpaper reproduction of this draft
on his site at
//www.digalog.com/viking/rune/kcopy.htm
Some of the discrepancies are errors a legitimate
transcriber could plausibly have made -- omitting
VED between LAeGER and (numeral) 2, spelling
NORR NOR, copying the second RISE RESE, etc.
However, others are suspiciously intrusive: FRO becomes
FROM, ROeDE becomes ROeHDE, BLOD becomes BLOeD
(where O is a simple vertical stroke with two side bars,
but the Kensington Oe is a very different O with an umlaut
above and a mini-E rune inside). And twice, DENO becomes
DENE, even though O and E are pretty distinct. A copyist could
miswrite a letter once, and overlook a letter or even a word,
but why would a copyist make consistent mistakes, or introduce
letters that aren't there, or change a simple letter to a much more
complicated one?
The only explanation I can see is that perhaps Hedberg
and Ohman were trying to "correct" the stone, according to
their knowledge of Swedish or Norse or whatever, in
a backfired attempt to improve its credibility. But I have
no idea if these particular changes could be explained that way.
Does Mike or anyone have an idea?
As for Jan's "patently incompatible" runes used, "according to a
unanimous body of Scandinavian runologists," I find
Richard Nielsen's photocopies of the allegedly
unknown Kensington crossed-L rune, appearing 8 times in
the MS original of a well-known 14th century runic
text (though not in the more widely available printed
version) overwhelmingly persuasive in the face of
any number of runologists. IMHO, anyway.
A John Staahle of Denmark was working on a thorough
and thoughtful critique of Nielsen's articles back in 1994.
Does anyone know if he's published any of this?
-- Hu McCulloch
Econ Dept.
Ohio State U
mccul...@osu.edu
www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html
Jan Böhme
hmcc...@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote:
> Jan.Bohme writes, concerning the Kensington Runestone,
>>However, none of you have a degree in Scandinavian language history, I
>>can tell. The language, as well as the runes used, are patently
>>incompatible with its purported origin, according to a completely
>>unanimous body of Scandinavian runologists.
>As for Jan's "patently incompatible" runes used, "according to a
>unanimous body of Scandinavian runologists," I find
>Richard Nielsen's photocopies of the allegedly
>unknown Kensington crossed-L rune, appearing 8 times in
>the MS original of a well-known 14th century runic
>text (though not in the more widely available printed
>version) overwhelmingly persuasive in the face of
>any number of runologists. IMHO, anyway.
I was not thinking only of that. The umlauted runes, that you mention
above, are the most _patently_ incompatible features. There are no
umlated letters at all in any Scandinavian language untill the
sixteenth century, and the first examples of dotted umlauts appear
first around 1600 in Swedish. In Norwegian they do not exist to this
day.
So the runestone, supposedly from 1362, anticipates an orthographic
feature in later Swedish with more than two hundred years.
Besides, I find your attitude to the established academic discipline
of runology overbearing, to say the least. For natural reasons, the
academic subject of runology is most developed in Scandinavia, and it
is here we have almost all of the internationally noted experts at
interpreting runes. One would presume, normally, that an academic
runologist would be the most qualified peson to judge whether a
runestone were authentic or not, and that the internationally most
renowned runologists, such as the late Swede Sven B.F. Jansson, who
was internationally recognised as the leading figure in runology of
his day, would cerry some weight to _their_ opinions. Even though they
had/have the credibility disadvantage of not being Americans :-)
As I have explained above, the _unanimous_ opinion of academic experts
in runology does _not_ rest upon any single rune or feature. There are
a number of incompatibilities, both with regards to typography of
runes and language.
Besides, the mere erection of a rune_stone_ is highly inlikely in
1362. Runes were used in Scandinavia for more than fifteen hundred
years, but for the vast majority of that time, they were mostly used
for carving wood staves. During a relatively short period, it was also
the practice to carve these runes into stone, largely as memorials
over deceased individuals, a practice that the shape of the runes is
not really too adapted to.
This period was long gone in 1362. I know of no Swedish runestone that
dates after 1150.
So essentially, what the Kensington worshippers want us to believe is
that a group of Scandinavians, more than 200 years after runestones
went out of fashion, took the trouble to erect a runestone on foreign
soil. No other such "Kilroy was here" stone has been found, ever. All
other runestones were erected where there were potential readers.
And they furthermore want us to belive that these runes were carved
using umlauts, which were only invented in the sixteenth century, and
in a form that has not been recorded until more than two hundred years
after the runstone was supposedly carved.
Sure, one can try to save the stone by reasonings like "Well, maybe
the scribe was tired, or drunk, and maybe then Ohman added the umlauts
and a few other things after he found it".
But there is something called parsimony. And if I am given enough ad
hoc space, I can prove that the earth is really flat.
Or that the British _really_ won the Independence War.
Jan Böhme
Yuri Kuchinsky
hmcc...@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote in
<hmccullo.7...@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu>
...
> As for Jan's "patently incompatible" runes used, "according to a
> unanimous body of Scandinavian runologists," I find
> Richard Nielsen's photocopies of the allegedly
> unknown Kensington crossed-L rune, appearing 8 times in
> the MS original of a well-known 14th century runic
> text (though not in the more widely available printed
> version) overwhelmingly persuasive in the face of
> any number of runologists. IMHO, anyway.
>
> A John Staahle of Denmark was working on a thorough
> and thoughtful critique of Nielsen's articles back in 1994.
> Does anyone know if he's published any of this?
Hu,
So, Staahle was working on this, back then?
Again, interested people should read THE KENSINGTON STONE VINDICATED, by
Rolf Nilsestuen, 1994. Linguist Robert A. Hall, Jr. writes in the foreword
of this book that, among other things:
"All objections to the language and symbols [of the inscription] have been
proven invalid, as have Wahlgren's irresponsible charges against the
evidence regarding the discovery."
Hall was preparing a book of his own on the subject at the time. I don't
know if it came out yet. So it looks like soon there may be whole two
new works defending the authenticity of the Stone.
As far as Jan's "unanimity of Scandinavian runic experts contra the
authenticity", I can assure him that it exists only in his own seemingly
rather overheated imagination. I don't know why people sometimes wish to
distort reality where the truth is obviously otherwise... Jan's
credibility is the only victim of such self-evident attempts to forge a
fake "consensus". And then he has the nerve to chide you for not
respecting experts' opinions! Indeed...
Best regards,
Yuri.
--
Yuri Kuchinsky | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
------------------------| is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
Toronto ... the Earth | and the most modern serpents." F. Nietzsche
--- my webpage is (for now?) back at: http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
Hu McCulloch
Jan Boehme writes,
>hmcc...@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote:
>>As for Jan's "patently incompatible" runes used, "according to a
>>unanimous body of Scandinavian runologists," I find
>>Richard Nielsen's photocopies of the allegedly
>>unknown Kensington crossed-L rune, appearing 8 times in
>>the MS original of a well-known 14th century runic
>>text (though not in the more widely available printed
>>version) overwhelmingly persuasive in the face of
>>any number of runologists. IMHO, anyway.
>I was not thinking only of that. The umlauted runes, that you mention
>above, are the most _patently_ incompatible features. There are no
>umlated letters at all in any Scandinavian language untill the
>sixteenth century, and the first examples of dotted umlauts appear
>first around 1600 in Swedish. In Norwegian they do not exist to this
>day.
>So the runestone, supposedly from 1362, anticipates an orthographic
>feature in later Swedish with more than two hundred years.
[snip]
>And they [Kensington proponents]
>furthermore want us to belive that these runes were carved
>using umlauts, which were only invented in the sixteenth century, and
>in a form that has not been recorded until more than two hundred years
>after the runstone was supposedly carved.
[snip]
>Jan Böhme
Jan is mistaken that umlauts were only invented in the sixteenth century.
According to Frank Young(tip...@wam.umd.edu), writing on s.c.nordic, sci.arch
and s.c.german on 19 Jan 1994, the use of the umlaut in
manuscripts antedates most
written German. Many examples in Latin, before its extension to German,
may be found in Adriano Caprelli, ed. Lexicon Abbreviaturarum, in many,
but not all editions, but including the 1961 6th, according to Young.
Young didn't give any dates, but according to David Clement,
clem...@llnl.gov, on sci.arch on 27 Jan 1994, umlauts appear in
Upper German around 1200-1220. The earliest example he can
cite is a copy of Hartmann von Aue's _Iwein_, but he wouldn't
be surprised if there were earlier examples.
So if umlauts are in German by 1220, and got into German from
Latin, they were present in Latin before 1220. Latin was an
international language, the language of the Roman Catholic church.
Scandinavia was Romanized by 1220, so it's safe to assume
that umlauted Latin was
known in Scandinavia by this time. Ae and Oe are present in
both Latin and the Germanic languages, so it is natural that
the Germanics would borrow the Latin signs for these as
appropriate.
The mainland Germans abandoned runes in favor of Latin
letters early on, and so adopted the umlauted Latin A and O
(and added Ue?) straight away. For some reason, perhaps
the timing of their conversion, and the attitude of the Church
toward "pagan" alphabets in different centuries (as if
Latin weren't pagan!), the Scandinavians clung to runes
for writing their own languages for several centuries after
their conversion. In the 14th c Scandinavian texts were
written sometimes in runes, and sometimes in Latin
letters.
So it would not be surprising at all to find
umlauted Latin Ae or Oe or even umlauted runes
used in the 14th century to write Scandinavian languages.
In fact, the form of Oe that caught on in
Latin letter texts was O with a /
over it. This O/ already appears by 1300, according to
Fig. 6 of Thalbitzer, Two Runic Stones, from Greenland
and Minnesota, in Smithsonian Misc. collections Vol. 116,
No. 3, 1951, p. 22. (citing LF Raeaef, "Bokstafsformer
under medeltiden enligt Sverges offentliga handlingar")
It would not be out of place, then, for rune-writers to
try to do the same thing. R. Nielsen (Epigraphic Soc.
Occasional Papers, 1987, p. 67) points out that the symbol
inside the Kensington Oe is simply a diminutive runic e,
so that it is in fact a "bindrune," using the Dalecarlian
O-type O-rune. The two dots are then redundant , since
in Latin as in German they represent a vestigial e written
above the a or o. Thalbitzer actually cites an O-umlaut
appearing in Dalecarlian runes, from Liljegren (1832),
though I believe these are from the 18th century sources.
Allow me to return now to the crossed L-rune.
While Jan may have not have been thinking of the
it, at least one of the runologist he cites
("unanimous" covers all of them!) does. Erik Moltke,
Runologist of the Danish National Museum, in Antiquity
1951, p. 91, says that the Kensington crossed-L rune (which
Moltke identifies as representing J) was invented by
the forger of the Kensington stone, and that this
fabrication is evidence that the inscription itself is a fabrication.
On the other hand, Richard Nielsen, a pipeline engineer who
lives in Texas when last heard from, has photostatic copies
of eight examples of the Kensington crossed-L rune
from the 14th century Codex Runicus or Scania Law.
So whom are we to believe? The top runologist in Denmark,
who says it doesn't exist, or Nielsen with his xerox machine
who shows it does so? Call it arrogance or chauvinism
or what you like, but I'll go with Nielsen.
Now if this crossed L-rune is so arcane that someone with Moltke's
credentials was unaware of it, how in the world could Ohman,
the Minnesota farmer who found the stone and presumably
would have been the forger have known about it? Nielsen's
job takes him to the North Sea and allows him to hang out in
libraries in Copenhagen in his spare time. But Ohman's
job was quite different, and in any event he didn't have
access to transatlantic flights. The only reasonable conclusion is
that the crossed L-rune _by itself_ provides very strong
validation of the Kensington stone.
Of course the other aspects deserve critical attention
as well. I gather linguist Robert Hall has a new (early 1990's)
version of his early 1980s book on the language of the stone,
and that he concludes, like Nielsen, that the language is
credible, and even persuasive, as 14th c Bohuslansk,
but I haven't seen this yet.
Keith and Kevin Massey also have some interesting
insights into the use of AVM as an abbreviation for Ave Maria
(_not_ Ave Virgo Maria, they argue), at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/keithngail/ ,
especially at /ks2.htm .
-- Hu McCulloch
Econ Dept.
Ohio State U
mccul...@osu.edu
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html
Hu McCulloch
Yuri Kuchinsky writes,
>Again, interested people should read THE KENSINGTON STONE VINDICATED, by
>Rolf Nilsestuen, 1994. Linguist Robert A. Hall, Jr. writes in the foreword
>of this book that, among other things:
>"All objections to the language and symbols [of the inscription] have been
>proven invalid, as have Wahlgren's irresponsible charges against the
>evidence regarding the discovery."
>Hall was preparing a book of his own on the subject at the time. I don't
>know if it came out yet. So it looks like soon there may be whole two
>new works defending the authenticity of the Stone.
Hall's book is out: _The Kensington Rune-Stone: Authentic and Important,
A Critical Edition_. Jupiter Press, Lake Bluff IL 1994. Written with the
collaboration of Richard Nielsen and Rolf Nilsestuen, according to the
catalog card, so it looks like they've put their heads together.
I haven't seen it yet, but it sounds like it supplants Hall's 1982
_The Kensington Rune-Stone is Genuine: Linguistic, Practical, Methodological
Considerations._
Nilsestuen's own book can be obtained from the author -- see
http://members.aol.com/kensrune
for details. I haven't seen it yet either.
-- Hu McCulloch
mccul...@osu.edu
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html
Hal
yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Jan,
>
>Obviously you missed this whole long discussion and just now you are
>betraying your lack of background in this subject.
>
>You have given no serious arguments whatsoever and have made a number of
>significant errors of fact. Your judgement certainly seems very suspect.
>The sources you cite are outdated.
>
>The "confession" you mention is plainly bogus. Perhaps you're unaware that
>it was retracted?
>
>Jan Böhme (Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se) wrote:
>
> ...
>
>: can tell. The language, as well as the runes used, are patently
>: incompatible with its purported origin, according to a completely
>: unanimous body of Scandinavian runologists.
>
>
> ...
>
>: 1) The language used on the stone is impossible
>:
>: 2) The runes themeselves are impossible
>:
>: 3) The composition of the runes is highly improbable.
>
>All of the above is wrong and frightfully uninformed.
>
>: 4) There is no mention of places in North America where we now _know_
>: that Noresemen have lived, which would have been the natural
>: departure-point for such a journey.
>
>This is plain silly. What, do you expect them to include the zipcode too?
>
>Please get informed before you make everybody laugh at you... Your zeal to
>"debunk" is matched only by your obvious lack of grasp of these issues.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Yuri.
>
How can you post such an insulting msg as above and then have the gall to
sign it "respectfully?" After seeing some of your earlier discussions,
I'll accept Jan's reasoning over you anytime. If you hear laughter, it
isn't being aimed at Jan.
Hal
Steve Whittet
In article <5rpvdp$n54$1...@news.datakom.su.se>,
Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.seo says...
>
>hmcc...@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote:
>
>> Jan.Bohme writes, concerning the Kensington Runestone,
>
>>>can tell. The language, as well as the runes used, are patently
>>>incompatible with its purported origin, according to a completely
>>>unanimous body of Scandinavian runologists.
>
>>unanimous body of Scandinavian runologists," I find
>>Richard Nielsen's photocopies of the allegedly
>>unknown Kensington crossed-L rune, appearing 8 times in
>>the MS original of a well-known 14th century runic
>>text (though not in the more widely available printed
>>version) overwhelmingly persuasive in the face of
>>any number of runologists. IMHO, anyway.
>
>I was not thinking only of that. The umlauted runes, that you mention
>above, are the most _patently_ incompatible features. There are no
>umlated letters at all in any Scandinavian language untill the
>sixteenth century, and the first examples of dotted umlauts appear
>first around 1600 in Swedish. In Norwegian they do not exist to this
>day.
Didn't Nielson demonstrate the modern flavor of the 14th century
spoken language of the Bohuslan region of Sweden in his third paper?
(Nielson 1988)
>...
>Jan Böhme
steve
Jan Böhme
yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Jan,
>Obviously you missed this whole long discussion and just now you are
>betraying your lack of background in this subject.
>You have given no serious arguments whatsoever and have made a number of
>significant errors of fact. Your judgement certainly seems very suspect.
>The sources you cite are outdated.
>The "confession" you mention is plainly bogus. Perhaps you're unaware that
>it was retracted?
Retracted by whom?
>Jan Böhme (Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se) wrote:
> ...
>: However, none of you have a degree in Scandinavian language history, I
>: can tell. The language, as well as the runes used, are patently
>: incompatible with its purported origin, according to a completely
>: unanimous body of Scandinavian runologists.
>You are clearly and obviously WRONG about this.
By this you can only mean that there are indeed Scandinavian
runologists who consider the inscription authentic if you are
coherent. Could you specify who you have in mind?
>: 1) The language used on the stone is impossible
OK. I will make some specifikations: The runestone uses "og" with a
"stung" k-rune to denote "and". In both Norwgian and Swedish of the
day "ok" or "auk" would have been used. "Og" is a Danism in
present-day Norwegian, a reminder of 500 years of Danish overlordship.
The runestone consquently uses the modern, singular verb forms for
plural subjects. Singular verbs with plural subjects are unheard of in
either Swedish or Norwegian medieval texts, be they inscriptions or
diplomas. Indeed, they were only abandoned in written Swedish during
this century. However, they were no longer used _in speaking_ at the
times of the discovery of the kensington runestone.
The runestone uses the word "ded" to denote 10 dead men. Not only is
the form "ded" patently impossible in Swedish or Norwegian of any kind
("daud" or "död" would be the expected form). It is also the _strong_
form of the adjective, which indicates _singular_. Ten dead men would
have been "dauda", "döde" or even perhaps "dede" if we accept the
obvious Anglicism in the Runic text, but _never_ just plain "ded".
The word "opdagelsefärd" is of much more modern date than 1362 in
Norwegian.
The assimilation of "norr" for the "nordh", (meaning north) which
would be the normal word of the period is not recorded in Swedish
until a hundred years after the inscription, and does not occur in
Norwegian at all.
Furthermore, the inscription never makes up its mind as to whether it
is in Swedish or Norwegian. Some words seem Swedish, others Norwegian.
Besides, the stone is dated "ahr 1362". During Medieval times, there
wa no secular calendar. There was no "year 1362" just like that. There
_as_ a "year 1362 after the birth of Our Saviour".There is no instance
that I know of of any mediaeval Scandinavian dating that does not use
the Latin A.D. or Anno Domini, in full, or, in rare cases, a
translation to the vernacular _of the entire expression_. The
stone-carvers know enough Latin to make a credible shorthand for Ave
Maria. Omitting the A.D. before the figures would have turned it into
a meaningless number for a Mediaeval Scandinavian.
>: 2) The runes themeselves are impossible
Modern - but bloody unlikely period - Swedish umlauted o:s are
depicted with an umlauted o with an e-rune into it. Nobody wrote an
Umlauted o in the Latin alphabet in either Swedish or Norwegian until
close to the year 1600. The Kensington runestone predates the use of
this letter in Scandinavian languages by more than two hundred years.
I stress that it is not an umlauted o-rune, but a Latin unlauted
character, with a little e-rune inside it, with is used for _modern_
Swedish umauted o.
>: 3) The composition of the runes is highly improbable.
There is no runestone with an inscription as short as thisthat has the
runes arranged horisontal rows, one line under another, just as in a
modern book.
>All of the above is wrong and frightfully uninformed.
Wrong, well, that is for our Lord omniscient to tell. But
uninformed...?
>: 4) There is no mention of places in North America where we now _know_
>: that Noresemen have lived, which would have been the natural
>: departure-point for such a journey.
>This is plain silly. What, do you expect them to include the zipcode too?
No. I would have expected them to indicate a place of origin of the
expedition, rather than vaguely talking about "Vinland". Our ancestors
generally were short and to the point. They took no stock in vaguery.
>Please get informed before you make everybody laugh at you... Your zeal to
>"debunk" is matched only by your obvious lack of grasp of these issues.
I am answering this from soc.culture.nordic. Over here, I'd say there
are a few people who know how informed I am, normally.
And also, the Kensington runstone is stone :-) dead over here in
Scandinavia. One would suppose that there would be a reasonable
expertise of runestones available in the countries where they actually
stand, don't you think?
Jan Böhme
Jan Böhme
hmcc...@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote:
>Jan is mistaken that umlauts were only invented in the sixteenth century.
>According to Frank Young(tip...@wam.umd.edu), writing on s.c.nordic, sci.arch
>and s.c.german on 19 Jan 1994, the use of the umlaut in
>manuscripts antedates most
>written German. Many examples in Latin, before its extension to German,
>may be found in Adriano Caprelli, ed. Lexicon Abbreviaturarum, in many,
>but not all editions, but including the 1961 6th, according to Young.
Let's be careful. I never stated that the umlauted letters were
invented in the sixteenth cntury. What I said was that they only occur
_in any Scandinavian language_ at that time.
>Young didn't give any dates, but according to David Clement,
>clem...@llnl.gov, on sci.arch on 27 Jan 1994, umlauts appear in
>Upper German around 1200-1220. The earliest example he can
>cite is a copy of Hartmann von Aue's _Iwein_, but he wouldn't
>be surprised if there were earlier examples.
>So if umlauts are in German by 1220, and got into German from
>Latin, they were present in Latin before 1220. Latin was an
>international language, the language of the Roman Catholic church.
>Scandinavia was Romanized by 1220, so it's safe to assume
>that umlauted Latin was
>known in Scandinavia by this time. Ae and Oe are present in
>both Latin and the Germanic languages, so it is natural that
>the Germanics would borrow the Latin signs for these as
>appropriate.
You do not quite understand the nature of an umlaut. The dotted a:s
and o:s that are sparsely accounted for in Mediaeval Latin, are
_ligatures_ not umlauts. That is, they are shorthand contractions of
commonly occurring digraphs. Medieval Latin had a host of those,
denoting a number of different digraphs, making life hard for the
present-day diplomatologist. The "umlauted o" in Medieval Latin did
_not_ have the sound value of the Germanic umlauted o, and is thus
unlikely as a direct source for the Swedish dotted o.
This ligature was then used to create a new letter proper, to
correspond to the _phonetic phenomenon_ of umlaut, which occurred in
most Germanic languages, first in German, later in the Scandinavian
languages. As the need arose first in Germany, it was there the
umlauted letter properly defined was first invented.
>The mainland Germans abandoned runes in favor of Latin
>letters early on, and so adopted the umlauted Latin A and O
>(and added Ue?) straight away. For some reason, perhaps
>the timing of their conversion, and the attitude of the Church
>toward "pagan" alphabets in different centuries (as if
>Latin weren't pagan!), the Scandinavians clung to runes
>for writing their own languages for several centuries after
>their conversion. In the 14th c Scandinavian texts were
>written sometimes in runes, and sometimes in Latin
>letters.
>So it would not be surprising at all to find
>umlauted Latin Ae or Oe or even umlauted runes
>used in the 14th century to write Scandinavian languages.
>In fact, the form of Oe that caught on in
>Latin letter texts was O with a /
>over it.
Yes, the slashed O is earlier than the dotted O in Scandinavian texts,
and, indeed prevails to ths day in Danish and Norwegian. So, again:
Why on earth should the rune-carvers use an umlaut that was, at the
time, only used in High German, spoken far away from Scandinavia, and
with essentially zap cultural contacts, when there was, at the time,
an indigenous alternative, if the need arose? (There is considerable
debate as to how far the _phonetic_ procedure of umlaut had gone in
the fourteenth century in most Swedish or Norwegian speech. Indeed,
there are to this day conservative dialects where it has not occurred
completely.)
>Of course the other aspects deserve critical attention
>as well. I gather linguist Robert Hall has a new (early 1990's)
>version of his early 1980s book on the language of the stone,
>and that he concludes, like Nielsen, that the language is
>credible, and even persuasive, as 14th c Bohuslansk,
>but I haven't seen this yet.
Bohuslandsk, whether that of today or of the fourteenth century,
rigorously observed the difference between weak and strong adjective
forms, as did all other Scandinavian dialects. The word "ded" is
impossible. Imfuckingpossible. Both in terms of root and inflexion.
Bohuslandsk or no bohuslandsk.
Jan Böhme
Jan Böhme
bg...@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>As far as Jan's "unanimity of Scandinavian runic experts contra the
>authenticity", I can assure him that it exists only in his own seemingly
>rather overheated imagination. I don't know why people sometimes wish to
>distort reality where the truth is obviously otherwise... Jan's
>credibility is the only victim of such self-evident attempts to forge a
>fake "consensus". And then he has the nerve to chide you for not
>respecting experts' opinions! Indeed...
Could you then provide me with _one single instance_ of a Scandinavian
scholar with a degree in nordic language history or runology who has
ever even left open the possibility that the inscription be genuine?
Yours, impatiently
Jan Böhme
Jan Böhme
whi...@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <5rpvdp$n54$1...@news.datakom.su.se>,
>Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.seo says...
>>
>>I was not thinking only of that. The umlauted runes, that you mention
>>above, are the most _patently_ incompatible features. There are no
>>umlated letters at all in any Scandinavian language untill the
>>sixteenth century, and the first examples of dotted umlauts appear
>>first around 1600 in Swedish. In Norwegian they do not exist to this
>>day.
>Didn't Nielson demonstrate the modern flavor of the 14th century
>spoken language of the Bohuslan region of Sweden in his third paper?
>(Nielson 1988)
I wasn't referring to whether umlauts were actually used in speech at
the time in any Scaninavian region, which in itself, as you obliquely
admit, is doubtful.
I was rather referring to the _scribal practice_ of writing this
umlauted sound with a dotted o. This did not come into practice in
Scendinavia until close to the year 1600.
Jan Böhme
Inger Johansson
If the Kensigton Stone are genuin or not, I don´t know. But I do know that
some of the statements made by the combatants in this discussion are as far
from the reality as we are from the moon.
yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Jan Böhme (Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se) wrote:
> OK. I will make some specifikations: The runestone uses "og" with a
"stung" k-rune to denote "and". In both Norwgian and Swedish of the day
"ok" or "auk" would have been used. "Og" is a Danism in present-day
Norwegian, a reminder of 500 years of Danish overlordship.
If You knew anything at all about the old Nordic languages You should be
aware of the reality in old times: First of all, there are many things
incommon between old Norwegian(before the Danish overlordship), Swedish and
for example "English" or Northumbrian as King Alfred wrote it. Secondly
both "ok","okh", "ouk", "auk" and "ogh" could be used - due to two
different circumstances: Not everyone writing the "Funark" = Runewriting
was a good grammatician or even a linguist. Secundly - There were and are
differences in different parts of Scandinavia existing till this day. If
You talked to one of the older persons in Sannaes, Tanum sn, You would hear
them using one or two word you only could find in books written before 11th
Century they use "ogh" - Compare to King Alfreds Orosius when he used "k"
and "gh".
>The runestone consquently uses the modern, singular verb forms for plural
subjects. Singular verbs with plural subjects are unheard of in either
Swedish or Norwegian medieval texts, be they inscriptions or diplomas.
Indeed, they were only abandoned in written Swedish during this century.
However, they were no longer used _in speaking_ at the times of the
discovery of the kensington runestone.
Well that might count for the most wellknown Runestones. There are
differences from the 2th to the 4th Century. One example: "eirilar
wiwila"(= Jarlen Wivila). Norsk Historie, red. prof. Knut Mykland, Oslo
1976, bind 1, sid 346ff
As I wrote above I don´t know if the Kensington Stone are a fake copy of a
runestone or if it´s genuin. But it´s better to give the right answers
about what´s relevant or not for a true discussion.
Inger E Johansson BA History (I am a swedish woman with my roots from
Dammen(Arendal) in Sannaes, Tanums sn)
Hu McCulloch
Jan Boehme writes, in reply to a post by Yuri Kuchinsky,
>>: 1) The language used on the stone is impossible
>OK. I will make some specifikations: The runestone uses "og" with a
>"stung" k-rune to denote "and". In both Norwgian and Swedish of the
>day "ok" or "auk" would have been used. "Og" is a Danism in
>present-day Norwegian, a reminder of 500 years of Danish overlordship.
Wrong. According to R. Nielsen (1988 p. 130), Gro/tvedt (Skrift ok tale i
mellomnorske diplomer fraa Folden-omraadet 1350-1540, 1969,p. 229,
and Den Spraaklige Sammenheng mellem soro/stnorsk ok
baahusloensk maal, 1939, p. 16) cites usage of _og_ for "and" in
the Folden [Oslo] area of Norway. RN's figure 4, based on information from
Hagen (1976: 276), Bro/ndum-Nielsen (1927) and Gro/tvedt (1979 71&74),
shows that unvoiced K and voiced G were used (for K) along the entire
coast of modern Norway and western coast of modern Sweden (facing
Denmark and including Bohuslan, which Hall and Nielsen argue is
the most likely source of the Kensington dialect) as well as on the
islands of Denmark. This area had a strong Danish influence to be sure,
and on and off parts of it were even incorporated into Denmark.
Jan goes on,
>The runestone consquently uses the modern, singular verb forms for
>plural subjects. Singular verbs with plural subjects are unheard of in
>either Swedish or Norwegian medieval texts, be they inscriptions or
>diplomas. Indeed, they were only abandoned in written Swedish during
>this century. However, they were no longer used _in speaking_ at the
>times of the discovery of the kensington runestone.
>The runestone uses the word "ded" to denote 10 dead men. Not only is
>the form "ded" patently impossible in Swedish or Norwegian of any kind
>("daud" or "död" would be the expected form). It is also the _strong_
>form of the adjective, which indicates _singular_. Ten dead men would
>have been "dauda", "döde" or even perhaps "dede" if we accept the
>obvious Anglicism in the Runic text, but _never_ just plain "ded".
In another post today, Jan adds:
>Bohuslandsk, whether that of today or of the fourteenth century,
>rigorously observed the difference between weak and strong adjective
>forms, as did all other Scandinavian dialects. The word "ded" is
>impossible. Imfuckingpossible. Both in terms of root and inflexion.
>Bohuslandsk or no bohuslandsk.
"Ded" wrong, according to Nielsen. Jan should save his
lecture on impossiblity for Queen Margrethe, who for several
decades ruled a united realm of Sweden, Denmark and Norway.
In a letter dated AD 1390, in Diplomatarium Norvegicum,
Vol. 4, # 586, she spells dho/dh as ded. This was first noted
by Holand (1940: 306), and should no longer be a big surprise in
the Kensington discussion.
According to R. Nielsen (1989: 112),
KM Nielsen (no relation, 1950: 79) "considered that Queen Margrethe's
spelling of ded (for dead) could be an error by the Queen. However,
he also acknowledged that the form dhedh was not impossible."
[The Kensington word is written thorn-e-thorn, and RN notes that
thorn can be used for d or dh or th or even t, so we can take our pick
whether it is ded or dhedh).
As for the missing plural ending noted by Jan, RN continues,
"In the Kensington Runestone phrase 10 man ro/dhe af blodh
og dhedh (10 men red with blood and dead), ro/dhe (red) has the plural
adjective case ending e but dhodh (dead) does not. However,
the Latin AVM follows dedh, and it is not unusual for a runic
inscription to lose a termination vowel in the position,
as per Thompson (1975 or 76, Studies in Upplandic Runography,
66C). .... The plural ending such as e could easily be left off a runic
inscirption at the end of the passage, see Thompson (1976)."
Furthermore,
"Bro/ndum-Nielsen IV (1962:47 & 87) shows that the plural form do/hde
was sometimes undeclined as do/dh in the man and wife skilio/s do/th
aeller liuaendae (they are separated dead or living). .... [Thus]
e-endings were often attached to one adjective and not the other
in the same phrase. See, for example, Knudsen (1930: XXII) who
states that the definite adjetives in Old Jysk often lacked the e-ending, as
in Maughe loese Groffwe thinge oc numme hog tingh (many
read low things and understand high things). Here hog (high)
has lost the e-endings but groffure (low) retains the e-ending.
Hog (high) is in second position here, just as dho/dh (dead)
on the Kensington Runestone. ...
"Bro/ndum=Nielsen (1962:30-1) in any case shows that the neuter plural
ending was often dropped from the word do/dh (dead) and
this must also apply to the masculine. In any case participle
adjectives did not have any ending until they were reintroduced in
the late middle ages.
"Noreen (1942: 80, 90) stated that while dedh appeared to the layman
as the English word dead, its source could be found in the Old
Scandinavian literature. How right he was.
"Yet Wahlgren (1986: 103) still states, "The amusing language of
the inscription includes the English word dead, spelled ded. Wahlgren
has ignored the use of ded (dead) by Queen Margrethe's in AD 1390,
as reported by Holand (1940: 306) and KMNielsen (1950:29).
"In fact Jansson (1934: 113) cites odhedelik (immortal) in line 200 of the
Codes Passionarus of AD 1450-70. This is quite significant because it is
a second example of the delabialization of Queen Margrethe's ded,
and also shows the use of dh for the initial letter of dh, a letter
which the [thorn]-rune often represented. The original Codex
Passionarus dates from before AD 1350." Etc.
In his 1988 paper (p. 135), which has an earlier version of these
arguments, Nielsen concludes Wahlgren (and by
extension Jan) is _ded_ wrong about dead.
Jan continues,
>The word "opdagelsefärd" is of much more modern date than 1362 in
>Norwegian.
Granted, but Nielsen argues that what is intended is opthagelsefard,
an acquisition trip, and a perfectly good 1362-ism. The Thorn may be read
either as d, dh, th, or even t, according to Nielsen. See Nielsen's
articles in Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers, 1986, 1987, 1988,
and 1989, for details.
> [snip]
>>: 2) The runes themeselves are impossible
>Modern - but bloody unlikely period - Swedish umlauted o:s are
>depicted with an umlauted o with an e-rune into it. Nobody wrote an
>Umlauted o in the Latin alphabet in either Swedish or Norwegian until
>close to the year 1600. The Kensington runestone predates the use of
>this letter in Scandinavian languages by more than two hundred years.
>I stress that it is not an umlauted o-rune, but a Latin unlauted
>character, with a little e-rune inside it, with is used for _modern_
>Swedish umauted o.
I grant that the complete Kensington O/", although
not inconceivable, is not known to be actually
attested elsewhere per se. But Jan is still avoiding the
crossed L-rune. Moltke (1950, p. 91) says that
this "fictional" rune is the "coup de grace"
for the authenticity of the Kensington stone. Yet Nielsen
finds it 8 times in the 14th century Codex Runicus (as a variant on
L, not as a J as assumed by Moltke.)
Now if the Kensington scribe knew so much more about
14th century runes than the chief Runologist of the the
Danish National Museum, why doesn't that in itself prove that
he or she was an authentic 14th century runewriter, and that
the inscription's peculiarities, such as the O/", are equally valid,
however arcane?
>There is no runestone with an inscription as short as thisthat has the
>runes arranged horisontal rows, one line under another, just as in a
>modern book.
The 14 C Codex Runicus has the runes arranged in horizontal rows,
one line under another, just as in a modern book. As Jan
has pointed out, the Old World runestones he is
referring to date from a
few centuries earlier. Why would a 14th century inscription
be written in the 11th or 12th century style, rather than
in the 14th century style?
>>: 4) There is no mention of places in North America where we now _know_
>>: that Noresemen have lived, which would have been the natural
>>: departure-point for such a journey.
>>This is plain silly. What, do you expect them to include the zipcode too?
>No. I would have expected them to indicate a place of origin of the
>expedition, rather than vaguely talking about "Vinland". Our ancestors
>generally were short and to the point. They took no stock in vaguery.
Even if we don't know exactly where "Vinland" was, there is no reason
to think that in the 11th or 14th century the Norse were vague about
its location.
-- Hu McCulloch
mccul...@osu.edu
D. Spencer Hines
Elias Halldor Agustsson wrote:
> =
> Hal <Sander...@worldnet.att.net>, has brought to my attention the
> following article, which has not appeared on my server:
> # yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> # >Jan,
> # >
> # >Obviously you missed this whole long discussion and just now you are=
> # >betraying your lack of background in this subject.
> # >
> # >You have given no serious arguments whatsoever and have made a numbe=
r of
> # >significant errors of fact. Your judgement certainly seems very susp=
ect.
> # >The sources you cite are outdated.
> =
> Yuri cites no sources, which is good for him, as there are no informed
> sources taking his view.
> =
> # ># >Jan B=F6hme (Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se) wrote:
> # >
> # > ...
> # >
> # >: However, none of you have a degree in Scandinavian language histor=
y, I
> # >: can tell. The language, as well as the runes used, are patently
> # >: incompatible with its purported origin, according to a completely
> # >: unanimous body of Scandinavian runologists.
> # >
> # >You are clearly and obviously WRONG about this.
> =
> He is clearly, obviously and unabiguously RIGHT about his, as it is pla=
in
> and and clear as daylight to anyone with half a brain that the Kensingt=
on
> stone is a forgery. Not that it would bother you. I suppose that if yo=
u
> were to find a coin with the date "500 B.C" imprinted on it, you would =
think
> that it was really from 500 B.C.?
> =
> # >: 1) The language used on the stone is impossible
> # >:
> # >: 2) The runes themeselves are impossible
> # >:
> # >: 3) The composition of the runes is highly improbable.
> # >
> # >All of the above is wrong and frightfully uninformed.
> =
> All of the above is right. Tell me, Yuri, how much do you know of
> Scandinavian languages? Enough to tell 19th century Swedish (the langua=
ge of
> the Kensington Stone) from Old Norse?
> =
> # ># >: 4) There is no mention of places in North America where we now =
_know_
> # >: that Noresemen have lived, which would have been the natural
> # >: departure-point for such a journey.
> # >
> # >This is plain silly. What, do you expect them to include the zipcode=
too?
> =
> No, he expects that if it were genuine, the people who carved the Kensi=
ngton
> stone would have at least a rudimentary knowledge of Old Norse place-na=
mes
> pertaining to the New World.
> =
> # >Please get informed before you make everybody laugh at you... Your z=
eal to
> # >"debunk" is matched only by your obvious lack of grasp of these issu=
es.
> =
> How do you grasp it? Please inform us.
> =
> Hal's comment is short, but to the point:
> =
> # How can you post such an insulting msg as above and then have the gal=
l to
> # sign it "respectfully?" After seeing some of your earlier discussions=
,
> # I'll accept Jan's reasoning over you anytime. If you hear laughter, i=
t
> # isn't being aimed at Jan.
> =
> One cannot laugh, only shrug and wonder whether to cry or get really an=
noyed
> that such stupidity is indeed allowed.
> --
> |--Elias Halldor Agustsson----|----http://this.is/bofh/ -------|
> | Bastard Operator from Hell | Remember: Down, not across. |
> | ro...@BOFH.is EHA3-RIPE | ftp://warez.bofh.is |
> |-------Send me unsolicited commercial email and die!!!--------|
Very interesting dialogue. Serious, focused thinking is *really*
difficult, is it not?
Reading this exchange helps me better to understand the first O. J.
Simpson jury.
On to Roswell, New Mexico.
-- =
D. Spencer Hines --- "Lenin's patience, never plentiful, was exhausted.
"Why," he demanded, "should we bother to reply to Kautsky? He would
reply to us, and we would have to reply to his reply. There's no end to
that. It will be quite enough for us to announce that Kautsky is a
traitor to the working class, and everyone will understand everything."
"The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive" **Yale University Press**
(1996) Newsweek, 16 Sep 1996, p.100
Robert A. Woodward
In article <5s4plv$48g$2...@news.datakom.su.se>,
Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) wrote:
I would appreciate if the contestants on this thread would remove
'soc.history.what-if' from the distribution of their posts (as I have for
this post). This discussion is not on topic for that newsgroup.
Jan Böhme
"Inger Johansson" <ingere.j...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>Jan Böhme (Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se) wrote:
>> OK. I will make some specifikations: The runestone uses "og" with a
>>"stung" k-rune to denote "and". In both Norwgian and Swedish of the day
>>"ok" or "auk" would have been used. "Og" is a Danism in present-day
>>Norwegian, a reminder of 500 years of Danish overlordship.
>If You knew anything at all about the old Nordic languages You should be
>aware of the reality in old times: First of all, there are many things
>incommon between old Norwegian(before the Danish overlordship), Swedish and
>for example "English" or Northumbrian as King Alfred wrote it.
Yes, of course. However, the softening of the final k in "auk"
generally is not one of them. It is a feature that - with shoehorn -
might be interpreted as southern Norwegian, though. Softening of final
explosives do occur to some extence in the dialects on the eastern
part of the present Sørlandet or the old Norwegian province of
Bohuslän.
>Secondly
>both "ok","okh", "ouk", "auk" and "ogh" could be used - due to two
>different circumstances: Not everyone writing the "Funark" = Runewriting
>was a good grammatician or even a linguist.
Here I don't quite get what you mean. In the "normal" Viking Age
16-type futhark, the k-rune was used to denote both k and g. In
medieval runic scripts, "stung" runes, marked with a dot, were used to
show that it represente a variant sound. A "stung" k rune, as used by
the Kensington scribe, invariably represents a /g/, as far as I know.
You don't have to be a linguist to hear the difference between a k and
a g (as in the minimal pair "kapa"/"gapa"), and there is no reason to
believe that our ancestors had more of a tin ear. They just had a less
than perfect writing system. Either they went along with that, or they
modified it with stung runes. However, they did not sting runes
randomly.
BTW, your spellings are _Latin_ spellings. I am not aware of any h
runes being added after "auk" or "ok" in runic inscriptions, although
I suppose this might have been the case in late Mediaeval inscriptions
influence by Latin spelling.
>Secundly - There were and are
>differences in different parts of Scandinavia existing till this day. If
>You talked to one of the older persons in Sannaes, Tanum sn, You would hear
>them using one or two word you only could find in books written before 11th
>Century they use "ogh" - Compare to King Alfreds Orosius when he used "k"
>and "gh".
I'm afraid I can't decipher you with certainty. Do you mean that a)
peopla at Sannäs in Tanum speak a very archaic dialect and b) that
they use "ogh" as their dialectal word for "and"?
Except that I don't really understand what sound a /gh/ digraph would
represent in a present-day Swedish dialect, (is it a velar fricative,
or what?) I can't contradict you. Softening of final consonants _is_
known to occur around the Skagerrak.
>>The runestone consquently uses the modern, singular verb forms for plural
>>subjects. Singular verbs with plural subjects are unheard of in either
>>Swedish or Norwegian medieval texts, be they inscriptions or diplomas.
>>Indeed, they were only abandoned in written Swedish during this century.
>>However, they were no longer used _in speaking_ at the times of the
>>discovery of the kensington runestone.
>Well that might count for the most wellknown Runestones. There are
>differences from the 2th to the 4th Century. One example: "eirilar
>wiwila"(= Jarlen Wivila). Norsk Historie, red. prof. Knut Mykland, Oslo
>1976, bind 1, sid 346ff
I'm afraid I find you rather incoherent. There isn't even a verb in
the phrase "eirlar wiwila", so how this could be an example of
singular verb forms with a plural subject I am completely at loss.
But seriously: do you really mean that there are early runestones
using singular verbs to plural subjects? If you mean that, then please
substantiate it carefully. It would upset all I have learnt about
Nordic language history.
>As I wrote above I don´t know if the Kensington Stone are a fake copy of a
>runestone or if it´s genuin. But it´s better to give the right answers
>about what´s relevant or not for a true discussion.
Not being a professional runologist, I am certainly liable to make
mistakes. However, some of your objections are so strangely worded
that I have difficulties understanding what you meant.
Whatever you can say about Yuri, it is crystal clear what he means :-)
Jan Böhme
Hu McCulloch
Jan Böhme writes,
>hmcc...@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote:
>>Jan Boehme writes, in reply to a post by Yuri Kuchinsky,
>><"Og" is a Danism in
>>>present-day Norwegian, a reminder of 500 years of Danish overlordship.
>>Wrong. [snip)
>Well, it is.
What I was objecting to was not that og is a Danism, but Jan's contention
in his previous sentence (which I quoted but which he omitted in
his reply), "In both Norwegian and Swedish of the day [1362 AD] 'ok' or 'auk'
would have been used [but not 'og']."
> However, you are right that lentition of final plosives
>did occur in some south Norwegian dialects.
So I guess Jan now concedes, with a little boost from Inger Johannson,
that he was mistaken about og. Og may be a Danism,
but is old enough for 1362.
> As far as I can tel, the
>"og" is the main reason why a bohuslandsk origin of the text has been
>suggested.
Actually, the first reason why Bohuslan comes to mind is the first
line of the runestone. The inscription says the party was comprised
of 8 Go"ter ok 22 Normen. Why would the minority of Go"ts get
first billing over the more numerous Norwegians, unless either
a) the leader, who dictated the inscription, was one of the Go"ts, or
b) the scribe was a Go"t. Either way, the dialect is more likely to be
Go"tish than Norwegian, and certainly not Classical Swedish as
irrelevantly assumed by many of the stone's critics.
Now Go"ts are from Go"tland. Western Go"tland is also known
as Bohuslan, and even contains a burg called Go"teborg, aka
Gothenburg, which just happens to be the birthplace of our
correspondent Inger Johansson.
(Incidentally, Go"teborg is pronounced roughly y.(r)t.bo(.)r(-y.), where
I use . to represent a schwa (upside down e), the minimal vowel.
Note that the same G-rune is used to spell Go"ter and og
on the Kensington stone, so it is
not obvious whether this g in og is a hard English g or something
considerably softer. Oy!)
Having been drawn to Bohuslansk as an obvious candidate,
Nielsen (Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers
1988, pp. 128-32), following Robert A. Hall (The Kensington
Stone is Genuine, 1982, p. 40), shows that other
aspects of the Kensington dialect besides the
recently "impossible" but now viable "og" are _also_
characteristic of Bohuslansk. This
is probably discussed at length in Hall's 1994 book
that I referenced recently, and which draws on Nielsen's
observations. I refer you to them, as I don't really know
anything about it except what Nielsen says.
[snip]
>>Jan goes on,
>>>The runestone consquently uses the modern, singular verb forms for
>>>plural subjects. Singular verbs with plural subjects are unheard of in
>>>either Swedish or Norwegian medieval texts, be they inscriptions or
>>>diplomas.
>So you don't have a facile way of explaining away _this_ modernism, or
>did you just forget about it?
Nielsen (1988, pp. 131-2 discusses this, but it's over my head. Read
him or Hall if you're interested.
>>>. The word "ded" is impossible. Imfuckingpossible. Both in terms of
>>>root and inflexion.
>>"Ded" wrong, according to Nielsen. Jan should save his
>>lecture on impossiblity for Queen Margrethe, who for several
>>decades ruled a united realm of Sweden, Denmark and Norway.
>>In a letter dated AD 1390, in Diplomatarium Norvegicum,
>>Vol. 4, # 586, she spells dho/dh as ded. This was first noted
>>by Holand (1940: 306),
>Please, Hu, if you want to use the references you sprinkle the post
>with for something beside intellectual snobbery, could you please
>construct them correctly, i.e. so that another reader can actually
>_trace_ the reference? Holand (1940:306) and similar references are
>completely meaningless as long as you don't have a Table of References
>stating what book or journal article this shorthand stands for in a
>bibliographically searchable form.
Diplomatarium Norvegicum is apparently a standard title, as that
is all Nielsen gives. It translates in English to Norwegian Letters,
if that is any help. Hjalmar Holand is a very familiar figure to anyone
conversant with the Kensington stone -- his photo appears in
Williams' book along with that of the stone itself, and in
fact his initial "H" is cut into the base of the stone for
comparison to the inscription. His 1940 book is
Norse Discoveries and Explorations in America, 982-
1362, reprinted in 1968. But he is just a secondary
source for Queen Margrethe's letter. If you want to check
what she really said (and in which language, etc),
you should check the original source I did give, and not bother
with Holand.
[snip]
Re singular adjectives with plural subjects, I had said
>>"Bro/ndum-Nielsen IV (1962:47 & 87) shows that the plural form do/hde
>>was sometimes undeclined as do/dh in the man and wife skilio/s do/th
>>aeller liuaendae (they are separated dead or living). .... [Thus]
>>e-endings were often attached to one adjective and not the other
>>in the same phrase.
and Jan replied,
>No. Liuaende is, grammatically, a present participle. They only exist
>in one form, the weak form. There is no strong form *"liuend". So
>here, I would argue, that "do/th aeller liuaendae" refers to man and
>wife,separately. After all, one could be dead, and the other living.
>This example is by no means as unequivocal as the "10 man röde af blod
>og ded" of the Kensington stone.
Ingenious, but if the adjectives in "Man and wife, living or dead" ,
refer to them individually, then "10 men, red with blood and dead" could
as easily mean "9 men red (plural) with blood but still alive plus
a 10th dead (singular)." But I prefer Nielsen's interpretation.
[snip]
>You don't understand. As Elias has pointed out, the false identity of
>the stone is obvious for any reasonably knowledegable Scandinavian.
>Why? Because the language is entirely modern, with a couple of
>anglicisms on top of it, to boot.
Like og, for instance, until you look a little deeper.
As for Jan's contention that
>>>>: 2) The runes themeselves are impossible
I had written
>> But Jan is still avoiding the
>>crossed L-rune. Moltke (1950, p. 91) says that
>>this "fictional" rune is the "coup de grace"
>>for the authenticity of the Kensington stone. Yet Nielsen
>>finds it 8 times in the 14th century Codex Runicus (as a variant on
>>L, not as a J as assumed by Moltke.)
and Jan replied,
>There is no crossed L-rune. There is a bizarre rune in the word
>"sk*ar", which has the _shape_ of an L-rune with a horizontal cross
>over it.
Jan has never seen a crossed L-rune (outside of the Kensington
inscription), and neither has Eric Moltke, but this didn't
stop the scribe of the Codex Runicus from using it at least 15 times
on at least 8 different pages, mostly in the Scania Law, but
also twice in the song "I dreamed a dream this night".
These pages include 17 (2 specimens), 90 obverse, 93 (3), 94,
95, 97, 98 (3), and 100 (3). A different
scribe also uses it twice in Maria's Dialogue (PG Thorsen,
Om runeres Brug til Skrift Udenfor det Monumentale, Copenhagen,
1877), if Nielsen's photocopies (ESOP, 1987, pp. 51-83) are to be
believed. The Dialogue or Lament dates between 1300 or 1350,
according to Nielsen.
>The only reasonable interpretation of the rune is as
>representing an i- och a j-sound. Could you otherwise please inform me
>what a "sklar" is that one can camp by? It _is_ fictional used as a j.
Using L for the crossed L-rune and l for the ordinary uncrossed L-rune,
a few examples of where it appears are
maelLin (between)
fuLuahsen (full grown)
uiLdi (wild)
dahfuLli (ful day
HaeLhae (hedge)
maeLlin (between)
diupadaL (deep i a valley, ie hell)
siLki (silk)
paeL (costly stuff)
umiLde (non-mild)
aeLlaer (or)
Nielsen calls this a "palatalized L", but I'm not sure how it would
have been pronounced. Perhaps like gl in Italian? In any event,
from its usage we could call it the "wild L" the "mild L", the "silky L",
or Jan might even prefer the "hellish L". But it's some sort
of variation on L, not a J as supposed by Moltke and Jan.
As for what skLar might mean, using the "silky L", Nielsen
(ESOP 1988, p. 153) writes,
"The So"derwall Dictionary of
Medieval Swedish and Kalmar's Old Danish Dictionary show
skyl (shelters) also spelled as skiul skywl. For example Olsen
(1905: 162 [presumably O"stgo"talagaens ljuda"ra, Phonology of
East Gotlanic law, dissertation, Lund, 1904 rather than 1905]) shows
skiul (hiding place) used in Magnus Erikssons Landslag (state law).
Apparently, use of y in lieu of iu is a characteristic of West Sweden and
Skaane and Gro/tvedt [1938:161-2 (op cit, for Jan's benefit)]
confirms that iu > y in Bohusla"n. Bjo"rseth (Dialekt och
riksspraak i en bohusla"nsk [sic] socken, 1946:25) shows skyl as modern
Bohusla"nsk and skjol as the Old Norwegian word. ....
"Conclusion -- The transliteration and translation skylar (shelters) suits
the inscription very well. The latter then read: (we had camp by
two shelters one day's journey north from this stone.)"
(Above, Nielsen is using yl to represent the "mild L".)
>Besides, these runes were found in a Scanian text, were they?
Scania is just the next district south from Bohuslan. Nielsen writes
(1988, p. 253), "Bohusla"n was in close communication with Skaane
(Scania) in the 14th century. Skaane was part of Norway from AD 1332-
1360 and the Norwegian King kept his court in Skaane. When he
went to Norway, he usually went only to Baahus in Bohusla"n."
[The aa in Skaane is actually written as a single a with a little ball or
"bolle" over it.]
>You start to become horribly complicated, you know. Saying it is a
>mixture of turn-of-the-century Swedish and Norwegian with a few
>Anglicisms is sooo much simpler.
Suit yourself! I'd prefer to find the truth instead, complicated or
not. The Kensington stone still has a lot of loose ends to it,
admittedly, but Nielsen makes it sound pretty convincing.
I'll get myself a copy of Robert A Hall's 1994 book,
_The Kensington Runestone_, one of these days, to
see how many of Nielsen's arguments he, as a linguist,
buys. Sounds like interested readers should too.
-- Hu McCulloch
mccul...@osu.edu
Elias Halldor Agustsson
Hal <Sander...@worldnet.att.net>, has brought to my attention the
following article, which has not appeared on my server:
# yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
# >Jan,
# >
# >Obviously you missed this whole long discussion and just now you are
# >
# >significant errors of fact. Your judgement certainly seems very suspect.
# >The sources you cite are outdated.
Yuri cites no sources, which is good for him, as there are no informed
sources taking his view.
# ># >Jan Böhme (Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se) wrote:
# >
# > ...
# >
# >: However, none of you have a degree in Scandinavian language history, I
# >: can tell. The language, as well as the runes used, are patently
# >: incompatible with its purported origin, according to a completely
# >: unanimous body of Scandinavian runologists.
# >
# >You are clearly and obviously WRONG about this.
He is clearly, obviously and unabiguously RIGHT about his, as it is plain
and and clear as daylight to anyone with half a brain that the Kensington
stone is a forgery. Not that it would bother you. I suppose that if you
were to find a coin with the date "500 B.C" imprinted on it, you would think
that it was really from 500 B.C.?
# >: 1) The language used on the stone is impossible
# >:
# >: 2) The runes themeselves are impossible
# >:
# >: 3) The composition of the runes is highly improbable.
# >
# >All of the above is wrong and frightfully uninformed.
All of the above is right. Tell me, Yuri, how much do you know of
Scandinavian languages? Enough to tell 19th century Swedish (the language of
the Kensington Stone) from Old Norse?
# ># >: 4) There is no mention of places in North America where we now _know_
# >: that Noresemen have lived, which would have been the natural
# >: departure-point for such a journey.
# >
# >This is plain silly. What, do you expect them to include the zipcode too?
No, he expects that if it were genuine, the people who carved the Kensington
stone would have at least a rudimentary knowledge of Old Norse place-names
pertaining to the New World.
# >Please get informed before you make everybody laugh at you... Your zeal to
# >"debunk" is matched only by your obvious lack of grasp of these issues.
How do you grasp it? Please inform us.
Hal's comment is short, but to the point:
# How can you post such an insulting msg as above and then have the gall to
# sign it "respectfully?" After seeing some of your earlier discussions,
# I'll accept Jan's reasoning over you anytime. If you hear laughter, it
# isn't being aimed at Jan.
One cannot laugh, only shrug and wonder whether to cry or get really annoyed
Yuri Kuchinsky
"D. Spencer Hines" <shi...@worldnet.att.net> quoted in article
<33E6B9...@worldnet.att.net> the following post by Elias Halldor
Agustsson:
> > # yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> > # >Jan, > > # > > > # >Obviously you missed this whole long discussion
and just now you are > > > # >betraying your lack of background in this
subject. > > # > > > # >You have given no serious arguments whatsoever and
have made a number of > > # >significant errors of fact. Your
judgement certainly seems very suspect. > > # >The sources you cite
are outdated.
[Elias:]
> > Yuri cites no sources, which is good for him, as there are no informed
> > sources taking his view.
The problem with some of the posters here is that they don't have access
to a good newsserver, don't know how to use DejaNews, and generally don't
seem to know much about how the Usenet works. But they DO have very strong
opinions, all the same!
Elias here obviously hasn't read my original article in this thread where
I set the scene for the people new to this controversy, and where I
included the necessary references, as well as the Internet hotlinks to
sites with plenty more information, bibliographies, illustrations, and
whatever else...
And yet he is _very_ quick to condemn...
And I also suspect that Jan Bohme, the newly arrived and very opinionated
"debunker" in this thread also hasn't read that first article of mine, and
has not visited the sites that I suggested interested parties should see.
How else to explain that he is continuously trying to "reinvent the wheel"
here in this discussion? His highly confrontational posts are bereft of
citations of recent relevant literature, and he presents his rather weak
arguments based on linguistics like they've never been heard before...
Almost all of his points have been refuted numerous times in the
literature on the subject. Many thanks to Hu for dealing with them very
effectively.
As far as Jan's very strange opinion that _all_ "Scandinavian scholars"
_unanimously_ have refused to consider the Kensington Stone an authentic
medieval relic, I don't know whether I should laugh or cry about this...
Could all Scandinavian scholars be that obtuse? Perhaps someone here will
provide Jan with a name or two of Scandinavian scholars who are favourable
to the Stone? Or I will later do this myself...
When I read academic literature, I usually don't keep notes on the basis
of which scholar is born where. This way silliness lies. Obviously Jan is
VERY SURE that a) he knows what ALL true-blue Scandinavian scholars think,
and b) that this information is somehow relevant or important. I find both
these assumptions laughable.
It's also quite interesting that Jan actually hasn't cited even one
Scandinavian scholar who wrote about this recently...
Jan assures us that he's got quite a reputation in soc.culture.nordic. If
this is so, I wonder why he behaves and reasons in such an immature
fashion...
Best regards,
Yuri.
p.s.
Great sig, Spencer.
> D. Spencer Hines --- "Lenin's patience, never plentiful, was exhausted.
> "Why," he demanded, "should we bother to reply to Kautsky? He would
> reply to us, and we would have to reply to his reply. There's no end to
> that. It will be quite enough for us to announce that Kautsky is a
> traitor to the working class, and everyone will understand everything."
> "The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive" **Yale University Press**
> (1996) Newsweek, 16 Sep 1996, p.100
--
Jan Böhme
bg...@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>As far as Jan's very strange opinion that _all_ "Scandinavian scholars"
>_unanimously_ have refused to consider the Kensington Stone an authentic
>medieval relic, I don't know whether I should laugh or cry about this...
>Could all Scandinavian scholars be that obtuse? Perhaps someone here will
>provide Jan with a name or two of Scandinavian scholars who are favourable
>to the Stone? Or I will later do this myself...
>When I read academic literature, I usually don't keep notes on the basis
>of which scholar is born where. This way silliness lies. Obviously Jan is
>VERY SURE that a) he knows what ALL true-blue Scandinavian scholars think,
>and b) that this information is somehow relevant or important. I find both
>these assumptions laughable.
The Swedish National Encyclopedia which, by its charter, must provide
the current Swedish academic consensus, in its entry
"Kensington-stenen" (the Kensington stone) calls it an obvious and
unquestionable fake.
Firthermore, my colleagues at the Department of Nordic Languages at
Stockholm University assure me that there is no controversy whatsoever
within Scandinavian academia that the stone is a fake. Two quotes from
two different scholars with thesis subjects in Old or Medieval
Swedish: "Nobody has taken much interest in it lately. Basically
_everything_ is wrong. The question does not hinge on one or another
tiny detail, but on scores". Another, even blunter opinion: "For at
least fifty years, the only people that have believed in it are
neighbuorhood-boosting Americans. On the other hand, that is the kind
of people that believe in flying saucers and visiting aliens, too".
>It's also quite interesting that Jan actually hasn't cited even one
>Scandinavian scholar who wrote about this recently...
Well, I quoted Hedblom, 1984. But the main reason is that much isn't
written about it here. The case is closed. I can try and get back in
touch with my colleagues and see what the academic reputation of the
sainted Hall and Nielsen really is, if you like. As far as I can
understand right now, they haven't been considered even worthy of
rebuttal from Scandinavian scholars.
>Jan assures us that he's got quite a reputation in soc.culture.nordic. If
>this is so, I wonder why he behaves and reasons in such an immature
>fashion...
Dear Yuri, it happens from time to time that _I_ find people's
behaviuor on s.c.n. annoying, or perhaps even immature. Usually I just
ignore it. But if I find it reeally engrossing, I try to convey the
message in a more subtle way, by trying to make the other chap really
_look_ immature, rather than stating it.
In my experience, that works better.
At least in soc.culture.nordic.
Jan Böhme
Yuri Kuchinsky
Jan Böhme (Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se) wrote:
: hmcc...@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote:
...
: >Like og, for instance, until you look a little deeper.
:
: If you look deep enough, I suppose that you could say that it can't be
: _proven_ that any grocery note that I scribbled is _not_ medieval, by
: combining features from different dialects and making lots of ad hoc
: assumptions. However, this is not science.
Neither are your ad hoc "debunkings". Your vision is clearly obscured by
the idee fixe that you have in front of you.
You're talking about a barely literate immigrant farmer in America with a
few months schooling to his name. To judge from your complicated and quite
confused grammatical arguments, he must have had a Ph.D. in medieval
linguistics. It is quite apparent to everyone except you that a farmer
with a few months schooling was simply incapable of producing (what a
little prank!!!) a fake on such a scale that would confound our present
day world experts in runology!
There're dozens of solid arguments that confirm this. You simply haven't
informed yourself about this _very long lasting_ controversy. Now you come
in and expect everyone to be impressed by your credentials. I think you
simply got duped by your own preconceptions, my friend. Straining at the
gnat, and swallowing the camel...
: The zero hypothesis clearly
: is that the runestone is a fake,
Why?
Why should we refuse to believe the many eyewitnesses who confirmed that
the stone, when found, was entwisted in the roots of a tree, and thus
_must_ have been in the ground for many years? Even Williams accepts this!
Your suspiciousness is truly bizarre...
: linguistics and runology aside.
Exactly. As far as the linguistic arguments go, it is enough for me to
know that competent scholars disagree. In this case, the benefit of the
doubt should go to Ohman, the discoverer. He was a simple honest farmer,
not some kind of a Houdini of forgery... The master forger with great
competence in medieval runology??? You must be dreaming, my friend...
But the experts DON'T really disagree anymore. As we have pointed out to
you, the recent literature clearly SUPPORTS the authenticity of the stone
on linguistic grounds. It's like the story with "ded". You were swearing
and cursing -- using gutter language in fact -- just the other day that
this was impossible. If only you bothered to get informed, you would have
known that it is VERY possible. The medieval examples are given to you.
But of course you have complicated arguments on why the grammar doesn't
quite agree. Yeah, you should explain this to a semi-literate farmer... Or
to a guy from the 14th century who wrote that thing...
Or the crossed-L rune. The modern world authority in runology, Moltke, has
never seen it, but the illiterate farmer from Minnessota knows all about
it, and includes it in his "forgery"? Give me a break... This is truly
LAUGHABLE...
: It
: was supposedly carved two hundred and fifty years after any other
: known stone,
Why should I accept this coming from an obviously prejudiced source like
you? Citations?
: and it is a kind of "Kilroy was here"-message that is
: unprecedented on any other stone,
Yes? Citations?
: but conforms well with modern
: culture. It is not up to the debunkers to _prove_ it a fake.
Why?
: It is up
: to the proponents to give reasonable evidence for that it is _not_ a
: fake.
There are great many arguments, but you are simply unaware of any of them.
Get yourself some books and read...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- Specializing in factitious
editing of other people's posts since 1997 -=O=- my webpage
is at http://www.io.org/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
eril...@wintrashspam.bright.net
I find it incomprehensible that people still defend that thing.
--
|\ /|\ | |\ |\ |\
| \/ |/ | | |\ |/
| |\ | | | |\
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.win.bright.net/~erilarlo
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ADDRESS "COLLECTORS": I have never bought ANYTHING as a result of unsolicited mail and never intend to do so.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Jan Böhme
hmcc...@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote:
>Actually, the first reason why Bohuslan comes to mind is the first
>line of the runestone. The inscription says the party was comprised
>of 8 Go"ter ok 22 Normen. Why would the minority of Go"ts get
>first billing over the more numerous Norwegians, unless either
>a) the leader, who dictated the inscription, was one of the Go"ts, or
>b) the scribe was a Go"t. Either way, the dialect is more likely to be
>Go"tish than Norwegian, and certainly not Classical Swedish as
>irrelevantly assumed by many of the stone's critics.
Classical Swedish is a rather meaningless term for the time in
question. When the vernacular was used instead of Latin for writing,
it usually was the local vernacular. There are lots of examples in
Swedish diplomataries of local variants from Öster- or Västergötland.
>Now Go"ts are from Go"tland. Western Go"tland is also known
>as Bohuslan, and even contains a burg called Go"teborg, aka
>Gothenburg, which just happens to be the birthplace of our
>correspondent Inger Johansson.
Wrong, for the time in question.The province of Bohuslän is _today_ a
part of the Swedish Götaland. However, the Swedes only got it at the
Treaty of Brömsebro in 1645. Before this. Bohuslän belonged to
_Norway:_ In 1362, Bohusla"n was an unquestionable Norwegian province,
and would continue to be so for more than two hundred aand fifty
years. Middle age Bohuslansk is a southern Norwegian dialect., not
Swedish, and its speakers were Norwegians, not Swedes. BTW, the
national identity of "Swedish was, if anything, established _earlier_
in Middle age Sweden than in Norway, where, probably due to its very
extended geographical shape, regional identities, such as for instance
Trönder, clearly took precedence. Billing the Norwegians as simply
that, while giving the Swedes a provincial identity is bizarre in the
context of the time.
BTW, Gothenburg is _not_ a part of Bohuslän, but a part of the
ever-Swedish province of Västergötland. It has formed an
administrative county together with Bohuslän called, approprietly
"County of Gothenburg _and_ Bohuslän".
>Ingenious, but if the adjectives in "Man and wife, living or dead" ,
>refer to them individually, then "10 men, red with blood and dead" could
>as easily mean "9 men red (plural) with blood but still alive plus
>a 10th dead (singular)." But I prefer Nielsen's interpretation.
Come on! In "man and wife" you have two singular subjects, both
mentioned. This is someting quite different from ten men, mentioned in
a lump.
>[snip]
>>You don't understand. As Elias has pointed out, the false identity of
>>the stone is obvious for any reasonably knowledegable Scandinavian.
>>Why? Because the language is entirely modern, with a couple of
>>anglicisms on top of it, to boot.
>Like og, for instance, until you look a little deeper.
If you look deep enough, I suppose that you could say that it can't be
_proven_ that any grocery note that I scribbled is _not_ medieval, by
combining features from different dialects and making lots of ad hoc
assumptions. However, this is not science. The zero hypothesis clearly
is that the runestone is a fake, linguistics and runology aside. It
was supposedly carved two hundred and fifty years after any other
known stone, and it is a kind of "Kilroy was here"-message that is
unprecedented on any other stone, but conforms well with modern
culture. It is not up to the debunkers to _prove_ it a fake. It is up
to the proponents to give reasonable evidence for that it is _not_ a
fake.
>and Jan replied,
>>There is no crossed L-rune. There is a bizarre rune in the word
>>"sk*ar", which has the _shape_ of an L-rune with a horizontal cross
>>over it.
>Jan has never seen a crossed L-rune (outside of the Kensington
>inscription),
There is no "crossed L-rune" _on the Kensington stone_, which was all
I intended to say. There is a rune which, by all accounts, was
intended as a j, and which your sainted Nielsen prefers to represent,
in a completely unprecedented fashion, as a combination of a y and an
L.
>>The only reasonable interpretation of the rune is as
>>representing an i- och a j-sound. Could you otherwise please inform me
>>what a "sklar" is that one can camp by? It _is_ fictional used as a j.
>Using L for the crossed L-rune and l for the ordinary uncrossed L-rune,
>a few examples of where it appears are
> maelLin (between)
> fuLuahsen (full grown)
> uiLdi (wild)
> dahfuLli (ful day
> HaeLhae (hedge)
> maeLlin (between)
> diupadaL (deep i a valley, ie hell)
> siLki (silk)
> paeL (costly stuff)
> umiLde (non-mild)
> aeLlaer (or)
>Nielsen calls this a "palatalized L", but I'm not sure how it would
>have been pronounced. Perhaps like gl in Italian? In any event,
>from its usage we could call it the "wild L" the "mild L", the "silky L",
>or Jan might even prefer the "hellish L". But it's some sort
>of variation on L, not a J as supposed by Moltke and Jan.
First, I do not know of any other reference to palatalized L:s in
Medieval Scandinavian. They certainly don't exist in modern
Scandinavian languages, except as transition forms when going from an
L-phoneme to a j-phoneme. For all I know, the existence of palatalized
L.s in Middle age Scendinavian is Nielsen's invention. In four of the
examples you quote you have a _double_ l, with the first one
supposedly palatalized, and the second one normal. Ever tried to
pronounce a palatalized L before a nonpalatalized one? The effect is
very un-Scandinavian, I can assure you.
>As for what skLar might mean, using the "silky L", Nielsen
>(ESOP 1988, p. 153) writes,
><snip>
>"Conclusion -- The transliteration and translation skylar (shelters) suits
>the inscription very well. The latter then read: (we had camp by
>two shelters one day's journey north from this stone.)"
>(Above, Nielsen is using yl to represent the "mild L".)
Of course there is a word skyl. But it is pronounced with a full
wowel y - please remember that the letter y in scandinavian always
represents a wovel, never a consonant - and an L.However, the use of a
single rune for a long wovel and a consonant is entirely unheard of in
runic practice. Runic script is alphabetic, not syllabic. Using two
graphs to represent one sound was accasionally done. The reverse,
never. Claiming that the "crossed l-rune" represents a long y and an l
together is ad hoc speculation without andy founding whatsoever in
runology.
>Scania is just the next district south from Bohuslan. Nielsen writes
>(1988, p. 253), "Bohusla"n was in close communication with Skaane
>(Scania) in the 14th century. Skaane was part of Norway from AD 1332-
>1360 and the Norwegian King kept his court in Skaane. When he
>went to Norway, he usually went only to Baahus in Bohusla"n."
>[The aa in Skaane is actually written as a single a with a little ball or
>"bolle" over it.]
This paragraph is essentially all wrong. Scania is _not_ "just the
next district south from Bohuslän" it is separated from Bohuslän by
two other provinces, first a little bit of the Swedish Västergötland,
and then the whole then Danish province of Halland.
Scania was _not_ a part of Norway from A.D. 1332-1360. In the formal
sense of the time, it was an independent realm in personal union with
_Sweden_, not with Norway. It complicates the matter a bit that the
King of Sweden also was King of Norway 1320 -1355. However, this
King, Magnus Eriksson, definitely did not keep his court in Skåne, but
in his native Sweden. The duke Bengt Algotsson governed Skåne in the
name of the King, and he had nothing to do with Noway whatsoever.
After Magnus' son Håkan Magnusson became Norwegian King under the
Norwegian name form of Håkon, Scania and Norway were not even in
personal union with one another.
Seeing that simple facts of history and geography get as cavalier a
treatment as they do in Kensington revivalist argumentation, I am
certainly not prepared to take their lingustic arguments for granted
without thorough examination.
Jan Böhme
Don Judy
In Article<EEH9Hq.EC...@torfree.net>, Yuri Kuchinsky <bg...@torfree.net>
wrote:
> Newsgroups:
sci.archaeology,soc.history.medieval,soc.culture.nordic,sci.skeptic
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <shi...@worldnet.att.net> quoted in article
> <33E6B9...@worldnet.att.net> the following post by Elias Halldor
> Agustsson:
>
> > > # yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
> > > # >Jan, Obviously you missed this whole long discussion
> and just now you are >betraying your lack of background in this
> subject. You have given no serious arguments whatsoever and
> have made a number of significant errors of fact. Your
> judgement certainly seems very suspect. The sources you cite
> are outdated.
Yuri, the master and mouth agape believer of the outdated source, now wishes
to be considered a sharp critic of the same. Yuri has attacked the most
scrupulous contributors with regard to citing sources and references to
discussions in the archaeology newsgroups, at the same time telling people to
look up his old posts in DejaNews. B. Ortiz, D. Martinez and others probably
are laughing and crying at the same time at this crude gambit; laughing at his
claims of serious scholarship, crying over time wasted on Yuri's dubious
ubiquitous claims.
Anyone with WWW access can go to
www.andes.missouri.edu/personal/dmartinez/diffusion/ for an accurate view of
Yuri's scholarship. Check smoking guns and several others, Domingo Martinez
Castilla has an informative website, some pertaining to Yuri, much
(thankfully) beyond dealing with the Yuricentric-bot.
> [Elias:]
> > > Yuri cites no sources, which is good for him, as there are no informed
> > > sources taking his view.
> The problem with some of the posters here is that they don't have access
> to a good newsserver, don't know how to use DejaNews, and generally don't
> seem to know much about how the Usenet works. But they DO have very strong
> opinions, all the same!
> Elias here obviously hasn't read my original article in this thread where
> I set the scene for the people new to this controversy, and where I
> included the necessary references, as well as the Internet hotlinks to
> sites with plenty more information, bibliographies, illustrations, and
> whatever else...
>
> And yet he is _very_ quick to condemn...
I miss the logic concerning the necessity of knowing how to use DejaNews and
understanding how Usenet works being central to the expression of opinions in
the same forum. At the same time you bemoan others' lack of understanding
Usenet and that lack translating to a lack of qualification to post opinions,
you have strong opinions that you clearly wish to express to everyone that
reads the archaeology newsgroups, and yet you demonstrate in the above
paragraph(s) that you don't understand Usenet.
Yuri, Usenet is not the WWW. There are plenty of people with access to Usenet
that don't have access to DejaNews, so you should assume people do not have
access to your old posts; even if they do (have access to your old posts), you
post so frequently they'd have a hard time finding your references in the
flood of postings, crosspostings and jumps from subject to subject. If you
wanted them to see your references, you would post them with each article as
you use them. If you wish to refer to your own previous articles as
references, which it is clear you do, then you should cite the articles
according to the conventions as they presently exist for citing online
references. Speaking to you as the scholar you claim to be, you should be
aware of these. Speaking as someone who makes no claims for himself, it's not
my job to supply you with them.
>
> And I also suspect that Jan Bohme, the newly arrived and very opinionated
> "debunker" in this thread also hasn't read that first article of mine, and
> has not visited the sites that I suggested interested parties should see.
> How else to explain that he is continuously trying to "reinvent the wheel"
> here in this discussion? His highly confrontational posts are bereft of
> citations of recent relevant literature, and he presents his rather weak
> arguments based on linguistics like they've never been heard before...
> Almost all of his points have been refuted numerous times in the
> literature on the subject. Many thanks to Hu for dealing with them very
> effectively.
You used nine 80 column lines in a paragraph loaded with speculation
concerning his missing your all important first article. Wouldn't it be
easier to post the reference number for the article so he could find it
easily?
You're making the claims, you should supply the references. It's that simple.
Of course, it's easy to simply deny that you should do this, but if you
actually wish to be taken seriously you should consider it.
> As far as Jan's very strange opinion that _all_ "Scandinavian scholars"
> _unanimously_ have refused to consider the Kensington Stone an authentic
> medieval relic, I don't know whether I should laugh or cry about this...
>
> Could all Scandinavian scholars be that obtuse? Perhaps someone here will
> provide Jan with a name or two of Scandinavian scholars who are favourable
> to the Stone? Or I will later do this myself...
Why is it that you can seize on one personal expression of opinion and act as
if it is worth laughing or crying over, yet when you are confronted with vague
and unsupported claims of your own you claim these are minor points not worth
discussing? Matt Silberstein is still waiting (without bated breath or he'd be
long gone) for the source of your mystical unity of man quote which you
thought important enough to use as part of an argument, but which you
apparently thought not important enough to cite its source.
> When I read academic literature, I usually don't keep notes on the basis
> of which scholar is born where. This way silliness lies. Obviously Jan is
> VERY SURE that a) he knows what ALL true-blue Scandinavian scholars think,
> and b) that this information is somehow relevant or important. I find both
> these assumptions laughable.
But worth expending time and cyberspace to share your laughter. Gotta love it.
> It's also quite interesting that Jan actually hasn't cited even one
> Scandinavian scholar who wrote about this recently...
Yuri has an interesting definition of scholar in his head, no doubt. No doubt
someone very much like him.
> Jan assures us that he's got quite a reputation in soc.culture.nordic. If
> this is so, I wonder why he behaves and reasons in such an immature
> fashion...
Would someone who can't admit he's wrong be one of those who behave and
"reason" in an immature fashion? That's the behavior of a person willing to
stick his head in the sand to avoid seeing what almost everyone else does. I
won't say everyone, don't know 'em all, but there's one who continually posts
to the arch. newsgroups who does. Could it be......
> Best regards,
>
> Yuri.
^^^^ !!!!
> p.s.
> Great sig, Spencer.
>
> > D. Spencer Hines --- "Lenin's patience, never plentiful, was exhausted.
> > "Why," he demanded, "should we bother to reply to Kautsky? He would
> > reply to us, and we would have to reply to his reply. There's no end to
> > that. It will be quite enough for us to announce that Kautsky is a
> > traitor to the working class, and everyone will understand everything."
> > "The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive" **Yale University Press**
> > (1996) Newsweek, 16 Sep 1996, p.100
How revealing. Easy to see why you would like this.
> --
> Yuri Kuchinsky | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
> ------------------------| is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
> Toronto ... the Earth | and the most modern serpents." F. Nietzsche
> --- my webpage is (for now?) back at: http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
What does your sig mean to you, Yuri?
Regards,
DJ <hsa...@spam.this.epix.net>
Remove trashguard for reply.
Yuri Kuchinsky
Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) wrote on 1997/08/04 in
<5s4pga$48g$1...@news.datakom.su.se>:
> yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> >Obviously you missed this whole long discussion and just now you are
> >betraying your lack of background in this subject.
>
> >You have given no serious arguments whatsoever and have made a number of
> >significant errors of fact. Your judgement certainly seems very suspect.
> >The sources you cite are outdated.
>
> >The "confession" you mention is plainly bogus. Perhaps you're unaware that
> >it was retracted?
>
> Retracted by whom?
Retracted by the same guy who made the "confession"! You see now what I
mean about reading the relevant literatue and getting yourself informed?
So get on with it!
[snip more uninformed objections]
> The word "opdagelsefärd" is of much more modern date than 1362 in
> Norwegian.
This objection has been refuted in great detail by the sources I've
already cited. There's a webpage that I've given where this is dealt with!
A very knowlegeable medieval scholar said that this word is quite
acceptable in this context. So get informed. If you cannot access this
file I will be happy to repost it.
[snip]
> Besides, the stone is dated "ahr 1362". During Medieval times, there
> was no secular calendar.
What are you talking about here? Which "secular calendar"?
> There was no "year 1362" just like that. There
> _as_ a "year 1362 after the birth of Our Saviour". There is no instance
> that I know of
Yeah, sure, I'm supposed to take your word for it? Citations?
> of any mediaeval Scandinavian dating that does not use
> the Latin A.D. or Anno Domini, in full, or, in rare cases, a
> translation to the vernacular _of the entire expression_.
This is a very weak objection.
> The
> stone-carvers know enough Latin to make a credible shorthand for Ave
> Maria. Omitting the A.D. before the figures would have turned it into
> a meaningless number for a Mediaeval Scandinavian.
This is just plain ridiculous. Meaningless number?? Indeed...
[snip]
> >This is plain silly. What, do you expect them to include the zipcode too?
>
> No. I would have expected them to indicate a place of origin of the
> expedition, rather than vaguely talking about "Vinland".
You obviously expect too much. This objection is clearly meaningless.
[snip]
> I am answering this from soc.culture.nordic. Over here, I'd say there
> are a few people who know how informed I am, normally.
Well, so in this case you should get informed before you jump into the
fray, if you really care about your credibility...
Regards,
Yuri.
Jan Böhme
yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>You're talking about a barely literate immigrant farmer in America with a
>few months schooling to his name. To judge from your complicated and quite
>confused grammatical arguments, he must have had a Ph.D. in medieval
>linguistics.
No, silly. He hadn't. He just wrote in an mixture of modern Swedish
and Norwegian, which the stone proponents desperately try to rescue as
perhaps compatoble with 14th century Bohuslandsk using tons of ad hoc
assumptions.
>It is quite apparent to everyone except you that a farmer
>with a few months schooling was simply incapable of producing (what a
>little prank!!!) a fake on such a scale that would confound our present
>day world experts in runology!
Ohman was not as uneducated as you try to depict him. There were four
years of compulsory schooling in his days in Sweden. Any adult in
Sweden in Ohman's days knew about our Catholic past and the
Reformation, for instance. But it hasn't been argued that Ohman did it
alone, either. A certain Sven Fogelberg, who was a defrocked minister
in the Church of Sweden is supposed to have been into it. Fogelberg
was a university graduate.
>There're dozens of solid arguments that confirm this. You simply haven't
>informed yourself about this _very long lasting_ controversy. Now you come
>in and expect everyone to be impressed by your credentials. I think you
>simply got duped by your own preconceptions, my friend. Straining at the
>gnat, and swallowing the camel...
It is only long lasting in Minnsota. Here, the case closed a long time
ago, if it were ever open.
>: The zero hypothesis clearly
>: is that the runestone is a fake,
>Why?
>Why should we refuse to believe the many eyewitnesses who confirmed that
>the stone, when found, was entwisted in the roots of a tree, and thus
>_must_ have been in the ground for many years? Even Williams accepts this!
>Your suspiciousness is truly bizarre...
The whole stone is modern. The decimal notation is modern (never
otherwise used with runes), the umlauts are modern, the usage of
nationality adjectives rather that provincial adjectives is modern,
the whole idea of a stone commemorating a journey is modern, the usage
of a calendar year without reference to Christ is modern, the dating
with just the calendar year without an account of the day in question
is modern, the absence of cases is modern, the absence of difference
between masculine and feminine gender is modern, the usage of "man" as
an unchanged plural of "man" is _very_ modern, the construction "wi
war ok fiske" is modern, the mentioning of "red with blood" before the
more important message, that the men were dead, is hardly conceivable
before Romanticism, etc. etc. etc.
If true Norsemen had erected that stone, you can be absolutely damn
sure that each and every one of their dead mates would have had his
name engraved in the stone for posterity. It would have gone something
in the line of:
"Toste, son of Thorgeir, Gorm, son of Kolbiörn, [and eight others]
died here on this foreign soil, slain by skraelings. May God help
their souls."
Not chatty insignificancies like "we went fishing". Who cares about
_that_ for posterity? Certainly not our forefathers, who were _no_
friends of idle chatter.
To top up with, we have the Anglicisms: the root, as well as the
absence of a weak form _together_ in "ded", and the plural form
"mans".
The conclusion that the text was written by a modern Scandinavian
exposed to English is all but inevitable. Whether Queen Margrethe once
made a slip of the pen or not is immaterial. There isn't just a
single, or even just a couple of modern features on the stone. There
are literally scores.
To claim that Ohman et consortes must have been very adept in Medieval
Scandinavian is just poppycock. The language on the stone _only_
contains modern forms. Stone proponents then have tried to account for
all these forms somewhere in Medieval texts. But that does not change
the fact that the language on the stone is entirely modern.
There is not a single word, or form, that does not belong to modern
Swedish or Norwegian, apart from the anglicisms. The likelihood that a
text composed in the 14th century, by accidental use of rare variant
forms just by chance would produce a slightly anglified
turn-of-the-century Swedish or Norwegian is zap. Real 14th century
Swedish deviates a _lot_ from modern Swedish, I can assure you, having
had to go through a number of medieval diplomas in my day.
>: linguistics and runology aside.
>Exactly. As far as the linguistic arguments go, it is enough for me to
>know that competent scholars disagree. In this case, the benefit of the
>doubt should go to Ohman, the discoverer. He was a simple honest farmer,
>not some kind of a Houdini of forgery... The master forger with great
>competence in medieval runology??? You must be dreaming, my friend...
Again, you don't need any competence in medieval runology to write
what Ohman et consortes did. They wrote modern language using commonly
known Medieval runes. Apart from the infamous "crossed L-rune" but
since it is not _used_ as an L, the value of this proof is clearly
limited.
>But the experts DON'T really disagree anymore.
They never have, my dear man. Not here, where the real expetise, for
obvious reasons, resides.
>As we have pointed out to
>you, the recent literature clearly SUPPORTS the authenticity of the stone
>on linguistic grounds.
And could I be obnoxious engugh to ask for the academic credentials of
the authors of this recent literature? Any of them having a degree in
Nordic language history? Or in Nordic literature?
We have a lot of local neighbourhood boosters here too. The famous
Västgöta School of amateur local historians is a celebrated example in
Sweden. They maintain that their home province, Västergötland, was the
true cradle of the kingdom of Sweden, and that the standard academic
opinion, that Sweden grew out from a nucleus in Uppland, is based on
misunderstandings and on suppression of evidence by the evil-minded
Uplanders once they usurped power from the Westrogoths.
They are a lot like you Kensington people seem to be. Tons of
half-digested detail knowledge, but no sense of scholarship, no sense
of critical method, and absolutly no general knowledge, which is so
vitally needed to put details _in context_.
These people also publish, and cite one another. So, again, published
references are not enough. _Credentials_ of the authors, please!
>and cursing -- using gutter language in fact -- just the other day that
>this was impossible. If only you bothered to get informed, you would have
>known that it is VERY possible. The medieval examples are given to you.
Nope. There is no medieval example of the word "ded" used in its
strong form with a plural object, just as it would be in modern
English. And what little evidence there might be of occasional
truncation of weak plural forms came from the very distinct Jysk
dialects, that quite obviously have nothing to do with the language on
the Kensington stone.
>But of course you have complicated arguments on why the grammar doesn't
>quite agree. Yeah, you should explain this to a semi-literate farmer... Or
>to a guy from the 14th century who wrote that thing...
Again. There was _no need_ for the writer of the text to know
_anything_ specific about 14th century language, as the language on
the stone is _all modern_.
>Or the crossed-L rune. The modern world authority in runology, Moltke, has
>never seen it, but the illiterate farmer from Minnessota knows all about
>it, and includes it in his "forgery"? Give me a break... This is truly
>LAUGHABLE...
Hearing only your and Hu's accounts of what Moltke really wrote it is
a little bit difficult to conclude that Molte never had seen the rune.
What is clear is that he never had seen it used as a J. And I am quite
convinced that he had never seen it representing the wovel Y and the
consonant L together, as Nielsen proposes, either, as this is in
blatant contradiction with the basic rules of runic writing.
>: It
>: was supposedly carved two hundred and fifty years after any other
>: known stone,
>Why should I accept this coming from an obviously prejudiced source like
>you? Citations?
Would you accept the Swedish National Encyclopedia, under "runor"
("runes") as an unbaised source?
>: It is up
>: to the proponents to give reasonable evidence for that it is _not_ a
>: fake.
>There are great many arguments, but you are simply unaware of any of them.
>Get yourself some books and read...
I can only assume that the arguments given in this thread and
arguments presented on the Web, are a selection of the best arguments
there are. The arguments I have seen are strained, partially ignorant,
and all fall victim of Occam's razor and the rules of parsimony.
Which are, after all, quite fundamental rules in academic methodology.
>It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
>to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
What a wonderfully apt quotation you have found for yourself, Yuri!
Jan Böhme
Hu McCulloch
Jan Böhme writes:
>hmcc...@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote:
>>Actually, the first reason why Bohuslan comes to mind is the first
>>line of the runestone. The inscription says the party was comprised
>>of 8 Go"ter ok 22 Normen. Why would the minority of Go"ts get
>>first billing over the more numerous Norwegians, unless either
>>a) the leader, who dictated the inscription, was one of the Go"ts, or
>>b) the scribe was a Go"t. Either way, the dialect is more likely to be
>>Go"tish than Norwegian, and certainly not Classical Swedish as
>>irrelevantly assumed by many of the stone's critics.
>Classical Swedish is a rather meaningless term for the time in
>question. When the vernacular was used instead of Latin for writing,
>it usually was the local vernacular. There are lots of examples in
>Swedish diplomataries of local variants from Öster- or Västergötland.
According to R. Nielsen (1988, op cit for Jan's benefit, p. 127), Moltke
(1951, op cit, and "The Ghost of the Kensington Stone, _Scand. Studies_
25: 1-14, Jan. 1953) ignored Hagen's 1950 suggestion ("The Kensington
Runic Inscription" _Speculum_ 25: 321-56, 1950, at 341) that the
dialect was that of Bohusla"n, which in turn
(quoting Hagen) "must have been similar to
that of Va"stergo/tland just across the border", and still treated
the inscription as "the literary Classic Old Swedish, which had a fully
declined and complete case structure. Wahlgren ("The Runes of
Kensington" in _Studies in Honor of Albert Morey Stutevant_ 1952
and _The Kensington Stone, a Mystery Solved_, 1958) endorsed
Moltke's views, which were also those of Jansson ("Runenstenen
fraan Kensington i Minnesota", _Nordisk tidskrift fo"r
vetenskap konst och industri utgiven av Letterstedska fo"reningen
_ 25, nos. 7-8, pp. 377-405, Stockholm, 1949), but incorrectly
stated that all investigators agree that the language of the
inscription is Classic Old Swedish".
>>Now Go"ts are from Go"tland. Western Go"tland is also known
>>as Bohuslan, and even contains a burg called Go"teborg, aka
>>Gothenburg, which just happens to be the birthplace of our
>>correspondent Inger Johansson.
>Wrong, for the time in question.The province of Bohuslän is _today_ a
>part of the Swedish Götaland.
I stand corrected. Part of my confusion is that Go"taland is
not comprised of the two Go"tlands. Go"taland is one of 3
principal regions of modern Sweden, roughly the southern 1/3.
It contains many historical provinces (landskap), including
Bohusla"n, West Go"tland, East Go"tland, and several
others. The Va"stergo"tland (West Go"tland)
Hagen mentions above as probably having
a dialect very similar to that of Bohusla"n is adjacent to
Bohusla"n, but is not equivalent to Bohusla"n, even though
Bohusla"n is westernmost Go"taland. Go"teborg
is not in Bohusla"n, but, as Jan points out,
is in the modern county (la"n) of
Go"teborg och Bohus, ie (Go"teborg och Bohus)-la"n.
The Baltic island Gotland is part of Go"taland, but
is irrelevant to the present discussion.
I think I "got" it now. ;-)
So would Bohusla"nders in 1362 have
called themselves "Go"ts",
or "Norrmen", or something else?
> [snip]
> The zero hypothesis clearly
>is that the runestone is a fake, linguistics and runology aside.
While Jan is welcome to set up as his null hypothesis that
the stone is a fake, I often suspect that he and most other critics
of the stone are using the same hypothesis as their _alternative_
hypothesis as well! This is not science either.
Jan continues.
> There is no "crossed L-rune" _on the Kensington stone_, which was all
>I intended to say. There is a rune which, by all accounts, was
>intended as a j ...
Contra Jan's claim, there is indeed on the
Kensington stone a symbol which is a normal
L-rune (which appears elsewhere on the stone several times), with
a cross-bar superimposed on it.
Using ? to represent this symbol,
it appears in the word sk?ar, where there is no dispute about the identity
of the other other letters. It is true that most early accounts,
pro and con alike, assumed this was a j, since they had never
seen this symbol in a recognized Old World runic inscription,
and since skjar was the only word they could think of that fit.
This view is obsolete now that R. Nielsen (1987, op cit) has
found the same symbol used over a dozen times in two
14th century runic MSS. Its true value is some sort of
"silki L" (see below), not j or plain L. So these earlier accounts
(no longer "all accounts", contra Jan) are
now demonstrably wrong. But mere facts are of course irrelevant
if your null and alternative hypotheses are one and the
same!
For a pipeline engineer, Nielsen has done a great job. But
I wouldn't expect him to express the nuances of phonology
as well as a professional linguist would. So let's take a look
at what Robert Hall says in his 1994 book on
_The Kensington Runestone_, written
in collaboration with both Nielsen and Nilsestuen,
and therefore surely incorporating Nielsen's discoveries. Hall
is a professional linguist, recently retired from Cornell
University, with some 39 titles in OSU's card catalog.
Most of his work has been in medieval Italian
or modern English, but at least he's a linguist and a
medievalist. Have any Scandinavian experts critiqued,
reviewed, or even looked at his work yet?
>>As for what skLar might mean, using the "silky L", Nielsen
>>(ESOP 1988, p. 153) writes, ....
>>"Conclusion -- The transliteration and translation skylar (shelters) suits
>>the inscription very well. The latter then read: (we had camp by
>>two shelters one day's journey north from this stone.)"
>>(Above, Nielsen is using yl to represent the "mild L".)
> Of course there is a word skyl. But it is pronounced with a full
>wowel y - please remember that the letter y in scandinavian always
>represents a wovel, never a consonant - and an L.However, the use of a
>single rune for a long wovel and a consonant is entirely unheard of in
>runic practice. Runic script is alphabetic, not syllabic. Using two
>graphs to represent one sound was accasionally done. The reverse,
>never. Claiming that the "crossed l-rune" represents a long y and an l
>together is ad hoc speculation without andy founding whatsoever in
>runology.
I'm not sure whether Nielsen, who is writing in English, is
using y with its English value, or its Swedish value, or what.
Again, he's not the best person to evaluate the distinction between
normal L and silki-L as it appears in the above examples,
or to convey the distinction once identified.
So what distinction do readers think is being made in the
examples above? In former Scania and/or western
Go"taland, is the L in these
words still pronounced in a special way? If so, how?
-- Hu McCulloch
Econ Dept
Ohio State U.
mccul...@osu.edu
Hu McCulloch
Michael Turton writes,
> I've been following this thread for some time on sci.skeptic and
>all I can say is: One wonders why Bohme bothers. The arguments that BOhme
>has trundled out, as well as the learned backing which he has summoned
>(hello, Swedish Royal Encyclopedia) have been crushing.
> I haven't seen any post in which any of pro-Stone people has dealt
>with the problem of the anglicized plural "mans" used on the Stone. Did I
>miss something in the crosspostings? All this arcana about L-runes is
>really pointless unless that glaring "mans" is solved. What's the
>counterargument?
Note first off that 10 mans, whatever it is, is not an anglicized
plural. The English expression would be 10 men!
R. Nielsen (Epigraphic Soc. Occasional Papers, 18 (1989), 110-32, at
126-7) writes,
"Some critics have claimed that 10 mans (10 men) involved an
English word, man, with a plural s ending. Moltke and Andersen
(1950: 55} [Sorry Jan, see Nielsen for full references] imply that
the word could be English and state that mans is genitive singular."
I wonder how 10 mans could be construed as singular,
genitive or otherwise, but Nielsen instead counters,
"Holand (1940:310) has confirmed that the use of 10 mans in the inscription
is genuine Old Swedish following the review of Einarsson (1933:406).
K.M. Nielsen reports that mans is a well known West Norwegian usage.
Kvamme (1965:120), however, points out that the use of this phrase,
10 mans, went out of use in middle Norwegian during the years AD
1350-1560. Thalbitzer (1951:33) reports a mixed construction
still occurs in Icelandic, as in 200 manns and annan hundraDh
manns (genitive singular). [I use D here for the Icelandic edh. - HM]
Einarsson also states the same.
"KM Nielsen, however, rejects Holand's (1940: 310-311) claim
that the letter from AD 1349 which has twer gother moens
(2 gothic men) is proof of usage in Old Swedish. Nielsen
believes moens should be manna, which is then the genitive
plural and tha tmoens was a mispelling for the genitive
singular mans. Olsen documents in the East Gothlandic
the interchange of a for ae, and the referse. This is
discussed [in Nielsen 1988] under the section on 10 man.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that mans and maens
are the same word. "
Nielsen concludes, "The usage 10 mans (10 men) supports
the authenticity of the Kensington Runestone."
A related issue is the usage 10 man (red with blood and
dead) in the main inscription. 10 mans appears
on the side inscription in the phrase ([We] have) 10 mans (by
the sea to look after our ship.) Nielsen (ESOP 1988,
pp. 162-164] deals with 10 man at much greater length.
I refer you to him, as I don't have time to punch it all
in.
Perhaps Jan can cite a published paper that has
refuted Nielsen's arguments. I can't say I follow
them, but then I personally couldn't tell modern Swedish
from Norwegian! This issue is probably further discussed by
linguist Robt A Hall in his 1994 book
endorsing the Kensington stone. Has anyone seen it?
-- Hu McCulloch
mccul...@osu.edu
Michael Turton
In article <5sddnq$kfv$1...@trends.ca>,
yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>It should also be noted that great many of the academic opponents of the
>Stone's authenticity reside in Scandinavia. Why this is so is an
>interesting and far from a very simple question.
Hmmmmm....could it be because that's where the vast majority of the
world's experts on Scandanavian runes reside? Nah......
> I have the
>proof to show him wrong. This proof was not hard to find... And this is
>not the first time he came up with an ill-informed, and a rather
>prejudiced statement...
Yuri, you've been saying you have proof for weeks now. Post the
effing proof or shutup. I note you left out the defrocked minister in this
story.......
Mike
Matz Bjurström
On 6 Aug 1997 13:23:04 GMT, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
wrote:
>But the experts DON'T really disagree anymore. As we have pointed out to
>you, the recent literature clearly SUPPORTS the authenticity of the stone
>on linguistic grounds. It's like the story with "ded". You were swearing
>and cursing -- using gutter language in fact -- just the other day that
>this was impossible. If only you bothered to get informed, you would have
>known that it is VERY possible. The medieval examples are given to you.
>But of course you have complicated arguments on why the grammar doesn't
>quite agree. Yeah, you should explain this to a semi-literate farmer... Or
>to a guy from the 14th century who wrote that thing...
>
OK, so now I've followed the discussions silently for a while, but at
this moment I feel I must buzz in.
If we should take your arguments of what has been printed for fact,
then compare another topic: Aliens. UFO's.
If your argument holds, we could say 'look at all the recent
literature. There is noone scholarly that doesn't agree that we have
been frequently visited by aliens.'
Now that's bizarre. Just because published books says one thing or the
other, doesn't mean that reflects the current view of all science.
Suppose, this fall, they publish two or three books stating the stone
is a fake, would you then suddenly change your opinions? I think not.
To publish books of this kind takes several years of research and
isn't something you write in the same tempo as Steven King for
instance.
That said, my personal view is that there still are two major sides to
this matter. As I see it, it seems to me that on the pro-side, there
are mainly north-americans and on the con-side, there are mainly
scandinavians. Hardly surprising.
But since all undisputed runestones exist on Scandinavian (ok, some in
russia) territory, the reason for this being that they are mostly for
commemorative purposes, erected by the survivors back home;
the fashion of the runes, the linguistic aspects etc, I tend to
believe that the stone is a prank.
I've stated this in scn several years ago and noone has, yet, been
able to publish any proof otherwize that is not biased.
Since all discussions here mostly involve secondhanded information (or
worse), I don't expect that this matter will be solved here so I
suggest that both sides cool down until someone can produce firsthand
information. Prefferably if someone can get any of the experts to
state their views directly.
Cheers
Matz Bjurström
ma...@msn.com
Henrik Ern¿
Anders Berg <and...@algonet.se> wrote:
>
>Uhh? Folkungasagan, is it something you wrote? ;-) I think you are
>confusing this with Ynglingasagan.
Nope. The is a collection of tales regarding Folkungeætten, thats
is in Danish called folkungesagaen, what the swedes call it is no
concern of mine.
>Skåne was for some years in the 14th century during the reign of Magnus
>Eriksson part of Sweden, this is not a matter of dispute.
That is in fact a matter of dispute. Magnus was King of Skåne as
an independent realm, in addition to his Kingdom of Norway and his
Kingdom of Sweden
henrik ernø
Fridrik Skulason
In <5sd69o$q...@corn.cso.niu.edu> mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu writes:
on the subject of "mans" .....
Just thought I would mention something. In modern day Icelandic (which is
closer to Old Norse than the modern-day Scandinavian languages), the
phrases "10 menn" and "10 manns" both exist, but have different meanings -
the first one meaning "10 adult males", but the second one meaning "10
people, probably of mixed gender, and possibly including children".
I don't know how old the use of the word "manns" is, or if a similar
usage exists or existed in the various Scandinavian languages or dialects,
but it would be interesting to know.
Having said that I must add that I do believe the Kensington stone to be
a simple forgery - I am *not* supporting its authenticity.
--
Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-5-617273
Author of F-PROT E-mail: fr...@complex.is fax: +354-5-617274
Hal
Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) wrote:
>yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
>BIG SNIP of Yuri's "demi-scholarship" and Jan's cogent rebuttal
>
>It is *only long lasting in Minnsota*. Here, the case closed a long time
>ago, if it were ever open.
>
>Jan Böhme
>
-------------------------
No, Jan. The case closed long ago here also. The only folks who take it
seriously are a handful of second- and third-generation
Scandinavia-Americans who join the nationalist societies and sit around
and talk about the glories of the "old country."
Hal in Minnesota
Hu McCulloch
Fridrik Skulason writes, on the subject of the controversial phrase "10 mans"
in the Kensington Runestone,
>Just thought I would mention something. In modern day Icelandic (which is
>closer to Old Norse than the modern-day Scandinavian languages), the
>phrases "10 menn" and "10 manns" both exist, but have different meanings -
>the first one meaning "10 adult males", but the second one meaning "10
>people, probably of mixed gender, and possibly including children".
>I don't know how old the use of the word "manns" is, or if a similar
>usage exists or existed in the various Scandinavian languages or dialects,
>but it would be interesting to know.
Excellent! This would explain why
the inscription has "10 man" (red with blood
and dead) in line 7, but "10 mans" (by the sea looking after our ship)
in line 10. The victims were adult males (Nielsen has 2 pages
about why "man" might be used instead of "men" or "moen"),
but the party back at the ship, 14 days journey from the stone,
included boys or maybe even women. The latter would
even tie in well with Nielsen's reading of the long word
in the second line as opthagelsefard, a journey of acquisition,
or taking-up (land). If these were would-be settlers, at least
a few of them might have brought their families, but
would have left the women and children
behind in relative security while they ventured
on to see how docile the natives were. (Not
very, as it turned out.)
>Having said that I must add that I do believe the Kensington stone to be
>a simple forgery - I am *not* supporting its authenticity.
Gee, old Olaf Ohman is getting more erudite by the day!
First he can out-rune Erik Moltke, and now he's part
Icelandic. Hmmm.
-- Hu McCulloch
Yuri Kuchinsky
Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) wrote on 1997/08/04 in
<5s4plv$48g$2...@news.datakom.su.se>
> bg...@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> >As far as Jan's "unanimity of Scandinavian runic experts contra the
> >authenticity", I can assure him that it exists only in his own seemingly
> >rather overheated imagination. I don't know why people sometimes wish to
> >distort reality where the truth is obviously otherwise... Jan's
> >credibility is the only victim of such self-evident attempts to forge a
> >fake "consensus". And then he has the nerve to chide you for not
> >respecting experts' opinions! Indeed...
>
> Could you then provide me with _one single instance_ of a Scandinavian
> scholar with a degree in nordic language history or runology who has
> ever even left open the possibility that the inscription be genuine?
>
> Yours, impatiently
>
> Jan Böhme
Yes, Jan, I know how impatient you are to see yourself PROVEN WRONG. Wait
no longer, my poor misguided friend...
This should put paid to more of your uninformed claims about Kensinton
Rune Stone (KRS). I hope at some point you will realize just how
wrongheaded you're being, and how ignorant you sound when you so
arrogantly pretend to pronounce opinions on the subject you apparently
know so little about.
Writing about Wahlgren, the main recent "debunker" of the KRS, Nilsestuen
(1994) says the following about this quite an unscrupulous character:
"In his reviews [of Hall:1982], Wahlgren did not discuss a single fact
regarding the linguistic and runic elements that Hall brought forth. He
ignored an impressive part of the professional community who have defended
Kensington, including [listen carefully, Jan!] the Swedish philologist and
lexicographer Hjalmar Lindroth, the Norwegian philologist Gustav Indrebo,
and William Thalbitzer of Copenhagen, who was an accomplished linguist,
and researched the Greenland runes, and was very familiar with medieval
Scandinavian languages. In addition, Professor of Old Icelandic Stefan
Einarson was very open-minded about the possibility that Kensington was
genuine" (p. 95)
So, Jan, how about admitting it when you're proven "ded" wrong? How about
swallowing your pride for once, eh?
In addition, I've found the following bibliographic reference:
Thalbitzer, William Carl, TWO RUNIC STONES, FROM GREENLAND AND MINNESOTA,
Smithsonian Institution Miscellaneous Collections 116/3. [A translation of
TO FJAERNE RUNESTENE FRA GRONLAND OG AMERIKA, Danske Studier, 1946-1947.]
In this runological study, Thalbitzer compared a west Greenlandic stone
with the KRS, and found significant resemblances between the two. Aware of
the controversies with the KRS, he preferred, in this article, not to take
a clear position in support of the KRS, but he leaves open the possibility
that it is genuine.
I hope that now you can see the error of your ways, Jan, and will admit
so in public...
Respectfully,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- Specializing in factitious editing
of other people's posts since 1997 -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku
You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Henrik Ern¿
Oh, dear. Now, our Bohuslen-speaking Norsemen, not only using
*Jutlandic* words forms, they also using words found in modern
Icelandic.
It is no wonder that they ended up in Minnesota, with the language
they were supposed to speak, they propably could not even understand each other.
Hilarious, indeed.
Aspecially, since the Bohuslen dialect is an East-scandiavian
language while icelandic is west-scandinavian it is pretty odd
that they should retained aa West-scandinavian form not used in East-scandinavian language anno 1362.
Btw, I' like to sell you a used car.......
Yuri Kuchinsky
Elias Halldor Agustsson (el...@BOFH.is) wrote:
: Svo mælti Yuri Kuchinsky <bg...@torfree.net>:
...
: # The problem with some of the posters here is that they don't have access
: # to a good newsserver, don't know how to use DejaNews, and generally don't
: # seem to know much about how the Usenet works. But they DO have very strong
: # opinions, all the same!
:
: The problem with you is that you do not know Usenet, period. The references
: in your article are wrong (if not plainly forged) and your quoting is warped.
: I *run* this newsserver and my newsfeed is excellent.
My good man, you're losing grip of yourself. This sort of crazy accusation
can only point to your general mental instability...
...
: # Could all Scandinavian scholars be that obtuse? Perhaps someone here will
: # provide Jan with a name or two of Scandinavian scholars who are favourable
: # to the Stone? Or I will later do this myself...
:
: Just try.
Done already. And now be a good boy and calm down. Perhaps medication can
help...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- Specializing in factitious
editing of other people's posts since 1997 -=O=- my webpage
is at http://www.io.org/~yuku
Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing -=O=-
Hal
bg...@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>
>
>>Big SNIP of Yuri's blarney:
>
>
>All these things have been investigated in great detail by the Minnesota
>Historical Society. Nothing was found to indicate that the Stone was forged. >The verdict of the Society was: THE STONE WAS IN THE GROUND FOR A VERY LONG
>TIME.
>Another big SNIP
>
-----------------------------------------------
What is your source for this? You obviously know absolutely nothing about
the Minnesota Historical Society or how Minnesotans regard the Kensington
hoax. It is treated as a hoax at all academic levels in the state I call
home. I have no what your academic credentials are, but you and your
institution ought to be embarrassed by your postings.
Hal in Minnesota
Leif Roar Moldskred
In soc.culture.nordic Hu McCulloch <hmcc...@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> Excellent! This would explain why the inscription has "10 man" (red
> with blood and dead) in line 7, but "10 mans" (by the sea looking
> after our ship) in line 10.
Eh, no. That _could_ explain it. Big difference.
L. R. Moldskred
=============================================================
le...@stud.ntnu.no Dimna or: Steinberget 35A
(+47) 73 50 94 31 N-6065 Ulsteinvik N-7018 Trondheim
=============================================================
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments -
there are consequences.
- Robert Greene Ingersoll
=============================================================
Yuri Kuchinsky
Hal (Sander...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) wrote:
...
: No, Jan. The case closed long ago here also. The only folks who take it
: seriously are a handful of
Dupes who were taken in by shysters like Walgren. Here's a character who
_did_ have an incentive to engage in unethical practices, he did it, and
he gathered many abundant rewards... History was the biggest loser...
But now truth is finally emerging into the light of day.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- Specializing in factitious editing
Anders Berg
Henrik Ern¿ wrote:
>
> "Inger Johansson" <ingere.j...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> >During many years Halland and Skaane did belong together - but it was a
> >long time ago and the waterlevel wasn´t as it is today. During that period
> >however both todays Halland, Skaane and Bohuslaen were closely related to
> >the Nordmannaland = todays Norway.
>
> Thats interesting, when?.
I like to know that too! Halland and Skåne were closely related to
Denmark, and I don't think the waterlevel has anything to do with it.
> >> What, Magnus Erikson a *norwegian*, thats new. It is also totally
> >> new that he should have kept his court in Skåne.
> >No Magnus Erikson wasn´t a norwegian, but if You read about the
> >"Folkungaaetten" in Swedish history You will find that there were a period
> >when Skaane belonged to the Swedish crown.
True.
> Ok, if Folkunge-sagaen is your criteria. But why be so modest, if
> thats your source then also Zealand belonged to "Sweden".
> Source Rolf Krakas Saga. Not to mention Hedeby and Slesvig, and Samsø,
> and Attila the Hun ruled in DK.
>
> source Sigurd fafnersbane....
Uhh? Folkungasagan, is it something you wrote? ;-) I think you are
confusing this with Ynglingasagan.
Skåne was for some years in the 14th century during the reign of Magnus
Eriksson part of Sweden, this is not a matter of dispute. No need to
bring in Rolf Krake et al!
Cheers,
Anders
Yuri Kuchinsky
All of the linguistic arguments Jan is using have been refuted more than
adequately. I'm sorry that Jan is unaware of the recent literature, but
this is not my fault. He can read the books already cited in this thread
and see for himself. So I will deal only with some of his rather
uninformed objections.
As I already said in the post I made yesterday in a new thread, the
circumstances of the discovery leave little room for doubt that the Stone
is genuine.
Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) wrote on 1997/08/06 in
<5sa7ol$m5b$1...@news.datakom.su.se>
> yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> >It is quite apparent to everyone except you that a farmer
> >with a few months schooling was simply incapable of producing (what a
> >little prank!!!) a fake on such a scale that would confound our present
> >day world experts in runology!
>
> Ohman was not as uneducated as you try to depict him.
This comment is uninformed. Read the literature. Ohman only had a few
months schooling.
> There were four
> years of compulsory schooling in his days in Sweden.
Tell this to the education ministry. Your generalities are irrelevant.
> Any adult in
> Sweden in Ohman's days knew about our Catholic past and the
> Reformation, for instance. But it hasn't been argued that Ohman did it
> alone, either. A certain Sven Fogelberg, who was a defrocked minister
> in the Church of Sweden is supposed to have been into it. Fogelberg
> was a university graduate.
This is totally unfounded. I have no evidence that Fogelberg was
"defrocked". All I know is that he studied for priesthood once.
"Defrocked" implies that he was some kind of a rascal known for
immorality. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was very well
known in the neighbourhood, like all the participants in this story, and
nobody has ever claimed that he did anything immoral. He made a living as
a teacher to local kids, and was highly respected in the community. Nobody
has ever demonstrated that he had anything to do with the Stone. So all
you have shown so far is that one _relatively_ educated man lived in the
neighbourhood. Nobody has ever shown that he knew anything about runes.
This is the sort of pathetic insinuation that generally characterises the
writings of our "debunkers". Proof of anything is unnecessary as long as a
_shadow of a doubt_ can be cast on fine honest men whose every action was
very well known in a tightly knit community of simple farmers. Suddenly
the rural Minnesota becomes the nest of vipers and cunning and
dissimilating snakes, mixed in with unknown world experts in runology...
Shameless and unscrupulous accusers like Wahlgren were the real con-artists
in this story... They sure managed to fool much of the public long enough...
All these things have been investigated in great detail by the Minnesota
Historical Society. Nothing was found to indicate that the Stone was forged.
The verdict of the Society was: THE STONE WAS IN THE GROUND FOR A VERY LONG
TIME.
[omit unfounded linguistic objections]
> If true Norsemen had erected that stone, you can be absolutely damn
> sure that each and every one of their dead mates would have had his
> name engraved in the stone for posterity. It would have gone something
> in the line of:
>
> "Toste, son of Thorgeir, Gorm, son of Kolbiörn, [and eight others]
> died here on this foreign soil, slain by skraelings. May God help
> their souls."
This is ridiculous. Now you're telling the people in the 14 c. what they
should have written. Interesting but irrelevant.
> Not chatty insignificancies like "we went fishing". Who cares about
> _that_ for posterity? Certainly not our forefathers, who were _no_
> friends of idle chatter.
Who cares about the circumstances of how their friends got killed?
Another absurd objection from Jan.
> The conclusion that the text was written by a modern Scandinavian
> exposed to English is all but inevitable. Whether Queen Margrethe once
> made a slip of the pen or not is immaterial.
Sure. When your error was exposed this becomes immaterial...
...
> >But the experts DON'T really disagree anymore.
>
> They never have, my dear man. Not here, where the real expetise, for
> obvious reasons, resides.
You're uninformed *again*. I will post separately favourable opinions of
some Scandinavian experts.
...
> Again. There was _no need_ for the writer of the text to know
> _anything_ specific about 14th century language, as the language on
> the stone is _all modern_.
You have no idea what you're talking about here. This is absurd. You're
blinded by your obvious prejudice.
"Of the 65 words in the inscription, 48 (not counting the numbers) agree
exactly with Old Swedish or Bohslansk. ... The numerous variations
between Kensington and modern Scandinavian languages prove the medieval
origin of the inscription. Conversely, these variations expose the utter
nonsense of ... claim that it is a 19 c. Scandinavian immigrant dialect."
(Nilsestuen:1994, p. 83)
So, once again, get informed.
> >Or the crossed-L rune. The modern world authority in runology, Moltke, has
> >never seen it, but the illiterate farmer from Minnessota knows all about
> >it, and includes it in his "forgery"? Give me a break... This is truly
> >LAUGHABLE...
>
> Hearing only your and Hu's accounts of what Moltke really wrote it is
> a little bit difficult to conclude that Molte never had seen the rune.
> What is clear is that he never had seen it used as a J. And I am quite
> convinced that he had never seen it representing the wovel Y and the
> consonant L together, as Nielsen proposes, either, as this is in
> blatant contradiction with the basic rules of runic writing.
Here, actually, you _may be_ right. I have now looked up more info about
this "crossed-L rune" (which looks to the modern eye more like an "f").
The issue is a bit more complicated than Nielsen tended to portray. (Hu
relied on Nielsen here). Nilsestuen actually disagrees with Nielsen on
this. At issue is the reading of the word "skjar" (skerries) or "skylar"
(shelters). Which one is it? As I say, the supporters of the Stone
actually disagree here themselves. I will not get into this debate. Too
complicated...
> >Why should I accept this coming from an obviously prejudiced source like
> >you? Citations?
>
> Would you accept the Swedish National Encyclopedia, under "runor"
> ("runes") as an unbaised source?
You should be able to do better that this. The Encyclopedia may accurately
indicate where the consensus was at the time, but little more. Quote from
specialized literature please.
None of your arrogant claims can stand to scrutiny. Your reinventing the
wheel is tiresome. Your general expertise in this general area is no
substitute to some minimal research on this particular inscription, this
particular dialect, and this particular time period. You haven't done it.
Admit it. It is totally ridiculous to expect such a unique inscription to
conform to your highly subjective idea of "what it should be".
Get yourself some books and read...
Respectfully,
D. Spencer Hines
Hal wrote:
> =
> Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se (Jan B=F6hme) wrote:
> >yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
> >
> >BIG SNIP of Yuri's "demi-scholarship" and Jan's cogent rebuttal
> >
> >It is *only long lasting in Minnsota*. Here, the case closed a long ti=
me
> >ago, if it were ever open.
> >
> >>ANOTHER BIG SNIP>
> =
> >Jan B=F6hme
> >
> -------------------------
> =
> No, Jan. The case closed long ago here also. The only folks who take it=
> seriously are a handful of second- and third-generation
> Scandinavia-Americans who join the nationalist societies and sit around=
> and talk about the glories of the "old country."
> =
> Hal in Minnesota
It's certainly good --- and reassuring --- to hear that. I've always
thought that there were many sensible people in Minnesota.
One does not prove things by casting imaginary scenarios of, "what might
have happened" ---- but here's an intriguing sidebar.
If one were to take Yuri Kuchinsky's interior monologue seriously [and I
do not] one would have a group of Norse warriors in 1362 in what is now
the State of Minnesota. Supposedly, ten of their number are brutally
murdered by natives. But, rather than building a stockade, or carrying
out an organizd retreat --- the survivors, giving up all hope of living
through the next few days [a very un-warrior-like mindset] sit down and
carve a very elaborate stone --- [first they had to find a good one]
spending precious hours on this historical artifact that they could have
used to save their own skins. Warriors, in combat, do not have
historical preservation as their first priority.
As has been clearly stated by others, and in accordance with Occam's
Razor, the simplest and most plausible explanation is a simple hoax by
the defrocked minister ---- [curiously always missing from Yuri's
accounts] and the "simple farmers" ---- whom he always places front and
center on stage. This group could easily have carved the stone at their
leisure and then planted it in the ground for a few years to "weather" a
bit ---- then remarkably "found" it. Perhaps the defrocked minister,
out of a motive for revenge, had a strong desire to bambozzle the local
worthies. He seems an interesting character and it would be useful to
know more about him.
Are there any more "true believers" --- other than Yuri in Toronto ----
perhaps someone in St. Paul?
-- =
D. Spencer Hines --- "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da
gloriam, propter misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V,
[1387-1422] King of England --- Ordered it to be sung by his prelates
and chaplains --- after the Battle of Agincourt, 25 Oct 1415, --- while
every able-bodied man in his victorious army knelt, on the ground.
[Psalm CXV, Verse I]
Yuri Kuchinsky
I've given my sources already. Check Nilsestuen, 1994. It's not my fault
that you have trouble comprehending what you read...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- Specializing in factitious editing
of other people's posts since 1997 -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku
You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Hal (Sander...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: bg...@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: >
: >
: >>Big SNIP of Yuri's blarney:
: >
: >
: >All these things have been investigated in great detail by the Minnesota
: >Historical Society. Nothing was found to indicate that the Stone was forged. >The verdict of the Society was: THE STONE WAS IN THE GROUND FOR A VERY LONG
: >TIME.
:
: >Another big SNIP
:
Sagamaster
Hal wrote:
I have no what your academic credentials are, but you and your
> institution ought to be embarrassed by your postings.
>
> Hal in Minnesota
And what are your credentials?
--
Sagamaster
sa...@mn.uswest.net
"Now that I've given up hope, I feel much better."
Sagamaster
> >Historical Society. Nothing was found to indicate that the Stone was forged. >The verdict of the Society was: THE STONE WAS IN THE GROUND FOR
A VERY LONG
> >TIME.
>
> >
> -----------------------------------------------
> What is your source for this? You obviously know absolutely nothing about
> the Minnesota Historical Society or how Minnesotans regard the Kensington
> hoax. It is treated as a hoax at all academic levels in the state I call
> institution ought to be embarrassed by your postings.
>
Stop claiming to know what every one in this state believes or doesn't
believe to be a hoax.
I've stated before, there are a number of people with degrees in history
and archaeology who believe the stone genuine. One individual can't
speak for a whole state. You embarrass yourself by doing so,
Yuri Kuchinsky
Matz Bjurström (ma...@msn.com) wrote:
: On 6 Aug 1997 13:23:04 GMT, yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
: wrote:
:
: >But the experts DON'T really disagree anymore. As we have pointed out to
: >you, the recent literature clearly SUPPORTS the authenticity of the stone
: >on linguistic grounds. It's like the story with "ded". You were swearing
: >and cursing -- using gutter language in fact -- just the other day that
: >this was impossible. If only you bothered to get informed, you would have
: >known that it is VERY possible. The medieval examples are given to you.
: >But of course you have complicated arguments on why the grammar doesn't
: >quite agree. Yeah, you should explain this to a semi-literate farmer... Or
: >to a guy from the 14th century who wrote that thing...
: OK, so now I've followed the discussions silently for a while, but at
: this moment I feel I must buzz in.
...
: Just because published books says one thing or the
: other, doesn't mean that reflects the current view of all science.
: Suppose, this fall, they publish two or three books stating the stone
: is a fake, would you then suddenly change your opinions? I think not.
Don't hold your breath waiting for this, Matz. Just accept that the recent
scholarship is overwhelmingly in favour of the KRS. Knowing what pathetic
quality of scholarship was produced by the past "debunkers" of the Stone,
it would be very surprising if any new debunkings will come out to deal
with many solid arguments the defenders of the KRS published recently...
: To publish books of this kind takes several years of research and
: isn't something you write in the same tempo as Steven King for
: instance.
Matz, you have to realize one simple thing. When the KRS was the center of
public attention, earlier in this century, the Viking presence in America
was still considered a wild hypothesis. No hard proof of such was
available. In fact, the KRS was THE ONLY GOOD INDICATION of such presence
at that time. A lot was hinging on this Stone then.
So it is not surprising that very significant efforts were expended by
American Isolationists at the time to "debunk" the KRS. Every trick in the
book was used by such con-artists as Erik Wahlgren to discredit the KRS.
You should read what Nilsestuen writes about him in his 1994 book. He
documents in great detail the many distortions and outright disinformation
strategies used by Wahlgren.
But since Helge Ingstad's discoveries in Canada, all this has changed. Now
the academic community fully accepts that the Vikings were in Canada. So
the whole game has changed since then. Ask yourself, What are the real
stakes in this controversy now? Not all that much, if you ask me. We know
that the Vikings used the runes, and we know that they were in America. So
why couldn't they use the runes in America?
The only thing of importance in this controversy at this point is to
defend the honour of many honest men slandered by the unscrupulous
opportunists like Wahlgren who derived great many undeserved benefits and
honours for doing their dirty work...
: That said, my personal view is that there still are two major sides to
: this matter. As I see it, it seems to me that on the pro-side, there
: are mainly north-americans and on the con-side, there are mainly
: scandinavians. Hardly surprising.
Why is it not surprising? In fact it is quite surprising to me that so
many Scandinavians are going out of their way, even in this discussion, to
put down the abilities of their ancestors...
: But since all undisputed runestones exist on Scandinavian (ok, some in
: russia) territory,
What about the one in Greenland, studied by Thalbitzer, that I mentioned
recently?
: the reason for this being that they are mostly for
: commemorative purposes, erected by the survivors back home;
: the fashion of the runes, the linguistic aspects etc, I tend to
: believe that the stone is a prank.
:
: I've stated this in scn several years ago and noone has, yet, been
: able to publish any proof otherwize that is not biased.
Just read the relevant literature.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- Specializing in factitious
editing of other people's posts since 1997 -=O=- my webpage
is at http://www.io.org/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
Leif Roar Moldskred
In soc.culture.nordic Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@mail.trends.ca> wrote:
> Matz, you have to realize one simple thing. When the KRS was the center of
> public attention, earlier in this century, the Viking presence in America
> was still considered a wild hypothesis.
And let us not forget that it was discovered shortly after a period of
fierce national romanticm in Scandinavia. :Shrug:
> We know that the Vikings used the runes, and we know that they were
> in America. So why couldn't they use the runes in America?
It's not a question about wether or not they could, but if they did.
Of course; even if the Kensington stone _was_ genuine, it would still
not have been made by vikings.
> Why is it not surprising? In fact it is quite surprising to me that so
> many Scandinavians are going out of their way, even in this discussion, to
> put down the abilities of their ancestors...
I still haven't seen anyone in this discussion claim "they couldn't do
that." Some have said that they _didn't_ do that or that they
_wouldn't_ have done that, but that's not the same.
> : But since all undisputed runestones exist on Scandinavian (ok, some in
> : russia) territory,
> What about the one in Greenland, studied by Thalbitzer, that I mentioned
> recently?
Greenland isn't Scandinavian territory?
L. R. Moldskred
=============================================================
le...@stud.ntnu.no Dimna or: Steinberget 35A
(+47) 73 50 94 31 N-6065 Ulsteinvik N-7018 Trondheim
=============================================================
Grau, teuer Freund, ist alles Theorie; Und grün des Lebens
goldner Baum.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
=============================================================
Hu McCulloch
s...@post1.com (S.W.) writes:
>On Sat, 09 Aug 1997 22:30:10 -0700, Sagamaster <sa...@mn.uswest.net>
>wrote:
>=>And what are your credentials?
>And what are your credentials?
It's a little absurd to be asking credentials of someone who won't
even give their name and city. "Noms de Net" belong on
chat groups, not sci. groups. Besides Sagamaster and
SW, who's this Hal who speaks for the state of Minnesota?
On sci. groups (and soc.culture as well), it's probably safe
to assume that people who give no credentials have none
other than what they say, for better or worse. But it's
appropriate for people with real credentials in the area
to put them on the line when they speak up.
Although one can tell from my e-mail address that I'm
posting from Ohio State University, I try to dispell the notion
that I'm a university-ordained archaeologist when posting
on sci.arch by giving my department (economics)
in my signature.
-- Hu McCulloch
Econ Dept.
Ohio State U
mccul...@osu.edu
primary web page:
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/jhm.html
(but see "Some archaeological outliers" subpage!)
Sagamaster
>
> =>And what are your credentials?
>
> And what are your credentials?
A B.A. in History with a minor in Medieval Studies from the University of
Minnesota. Two semesters away from a M.A. in Teaching from University of
St. Thomas. And your's S W ?
Sagamaster
S.W. wrote:
>
> Well, the Kensington stone _is_ a hoax, as has been confirmed by the
> true expertise in the field. But since there are nutcases who believe
> in UFOs, black helicopters and a lot of other things why should there
> not be nutcases who believe in the Kensington stone? But their
> believing doesn't make it any more genuine.....
>
And another jerk is heard from who only knows how to use Ad Hominum
argumentaion. The argument of those who have no original thoughts of
their own and no truth to back their agruments.
D. Spencer Hines
Try "ad hominem" --- otherwise you undercut your own credibility as
"credentialed."
--
Hal
Sagamaster <sa...@mn.uswest.net> wrote:
>S.W. wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 1997 22:30:10 -0700, Sagamaster <sa...@mn.uswest.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> =>And what are your credentials?
>>
>> And what are your credentials?
>
>A B.A. in History with a minor in Medieval Studies from the University of
>Minnesota. Two semesters away from a M.A. in Teaching from University of
>St. Thomas. And your's S W ?
In other words, Sagamaster (whatever that is), you're far from an expert.
Now answer the rest of my response to you: Name one academic institution
(at any level) in Minnesota that teaches that the KRS is anything but a
hoax.
Hal
Elias Halldor Agustsson
Svo mælti D. Spencer Hines <shi...@worldnet.att.net>:
# Hal wrote:
# >
# > Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) wrote:
# > >yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
# > >
# > >BIG SNIP of Yuri's "demi-scholarship" and Jan's cogent rebuttal
# > >
# > >It is *only long lasting in Minnsota*. Here, the case closed a long time
# > >ago, if it were ever open.
# > >
# > >>ANOTHER BIG SNIP>
# >
# > >Jan Böhme
# > >
# > -------------------------
# >
# > No, Jan. The case closed long ago here also. The only folks who take it
# > seriously are a handful of second- and third-generation
# > Scandinavia-Americans who join the nationalist societies and sit around
# > and talk about the glories of the "old country."
# >
# > Hal in Minnesota
#
# It's certainly good --- and reassuring --- to hear that. I've always
# thought that there were many sensible people in Minnesota.
#
# One does not prove things by casting imaginary scenarios of, "what might
# have happened" ---- but here's an intriguing sidebar.
#
# If one were to take Yuri Kuchinsky's interior monologue seriously [and I
# do not] one would have a group of Norse warriors in 1362 in what is now
And what kind of warriors were they? Whom did they serve? Note that
this is 200 years after the end of the Viking era. What was their
motive in going all this way?
--
|--Elias Halldor Agustsson----|----http://this.is/bofh/ -------|
| Bastard Operator from Hell | Remember: Down, not across. |
| ro...@BOFH.is EHA3-RIPE | ftp://warez.bofh.is |
|-------Send me unsolicited commercial email and die!!!--------|
Elias Halldor Agustsson
Svo mælti Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk>:
# On 6 Aug 1997 13:23:04 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
#
# [SNIP]
# >
# >But the experts DON'T really disagree anymore. As we have pointed out to
# >you, the recent literature clearly SUPPORTS the authenticity of the stone
# >on linguistic grounds. It's like the story with "ded". You were swearing
#
# Are you missing some posts on your newsfeed then? Because I've seen
# articles in the past few days which show that they do. Or by 'experts'
# do you mean 'people who agree with me'?
#
# [SNIP]
#
# I am NOT an expert in runes, unlike Yuri, who seems to think he is.
And by the way, has anyone adequately explained why they carved
the stone in runes? AFAIK, common knowledge of runes was about
as widespread in the 14th century as it was in the 19th.
Hal
Sagamaster <sa...@mn.uswest.net> wrote:
>Hal wrote:
>>
>> bg...@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Big SNIP of Yuri's blarney:
>> >
>> >
>> >Historical Society. Nothing was found to indicate that the Stone was forged. >The verdict of the Society was: THE STONE WAS IN THE GROUND FOR
>A VERY LONG
>> >TIME.
>>
>> >
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> What is your source for this? You obviously know absolutely nothing about
>> the Minnesota Historical Society or how Minnesotans regard the Kensington
>> hoax. It is treated as a hoax at all academic levels in the state I call
>> home. I have no what your academic credentials are, but you and your
>> institution ought to be embarrassed by your postings.
>>
>> Hal in MinnesotaHall,
>
>Stop claiming to know what every one in this state believes or doesn't
>believe to be a hoax.
>
>I've stated before, there are a number of people with degrees in history
>and archaeology who believe the stone genuine. One individual can't
>speak for a whole state. You embarrass yourself by doing so,
>Sagamaster
>sa...@mn.uswest.net
>"Now that I've given up hope, I feel much better."
-----------------------------
OK Mr. Sagamaster: Tell me one academic institution in the state (at any
level) that teaches the stone is anything but a hoax. The fact that you
or anyone else may or may not have a degree in history or archeaology
says nothing about the validity of the stone.
Hal (and I'm not embarrassed)
Elias Halldor Agustsson
Svo mælti Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@mail.trends.ca>:
# Elias Halldor Agustsson (el...@BOFH.is) wrote:
# : Svo mælti Yuri Kuchinsky <bg...@torfree.net>:
#
# ...
#
# : # The problem with some of the posters here is that they don't have access
# : # to a good newsserver, don't know how to use DejaNews, and generally don't
# : # seem to know much about how the Usenet works. But they DO have very strong
# : # opinions, all the same!
# :
# : The problem with you is that you do not know Usenet, period. The references
# : in your article are wrong (if not plainly forged) and your quoting is warped.
# : I *run* this newsserver and my newsfeed is excellent.
#
# My good man, you're losing grip of yourself. This sort of crazy accusation
# can only point to your general mental instability...
In the same article (<EEH9Hq.EC...@torfree.net>) that you accused me of
following up off-thread (which was false) you did exactly what you were accusing
me of. Such dishonesty does seem to indicate that your integrity is suspect.
# : # Could all Scandinavian scholars be that obtuse? Perhaps someone here will
# : # provide Jan with a name or two of Scandinavian scholars who are favourable
# : # to the Stone? Or I will later do this myself...
# :
# : Just try.
#
# Done already. And now be a good boy and calm down. Perhaps medication can
# help...
Funny, I can't see that you have quoted any _scholars_. And too bad that there
is no medication available for dishonesty, because that would help you a lot.
Inger Johansson
----------
> Från: Donna Mcmaster <mcma...@news.msus.edu>
> Diskussions-
grupper: sci.archaeology
> Ämne: Re: Kensington Stone & S. Williams: debunking went wrong?
> Datum: den 10 augusti 1997 23:56
>
> Sagamaster (sa...@mn.uswest.net) wrote:
> : I've stated before, there are a number of people with degrees in
history
> : and archaeology who believe the stone genuine. One individual can't
> : speak for a whole state. You embarrass yourself by doing so,
> : --
> Well, last night I went to a wedding -- two Minnesota archaeologists
> getting married, with lots of Minnesota archaeologists in the crowd, and
I
> told them about this current insanity on sci.archaeology and several
> nearly choked to death on mouthfulls of beer. I think they're still
> laughing.
>
> But apparently, we aren't to consider the opinions of Minnesota
> archaeologists when this bogus issue comes up....
>
> Donna, getting cranky in Minnesota!
Please understand four main things about science -
1) We can´t wote if a found piece of stone( or wood or what ever we in
future will found in earth) is genuin or not. That´s bad science - we have
to argue out of what we know or what we think we know.
2) What might be the truth one day - doesn´t necessarily true the next year
due to new known facts or found statements in older sources. Each time,
each person has to use knowledge known at that moment - not to neglect new
circumstanses because it doesn´t suit "todays" paradigm. (New facts don´t
ask if the finder of them have a degree or not. And even if a person has a
degree in for example archaeology that doesn´t necessarily make him or her
an expert of for example other language in older times).Science
3) The fact that something found might be considered genuin doesn´t prove
that the finding is genuin. We have to consider the fact that we might have
a true runestone. (By the way there are runstones found outside Scandinavia
and Russia). Even if the runestone is genuin it is possible that it came to
the place later than in the time it was made.
4) There are no better way to show ignorance of science than to laugh at
other peoples opinion instead of using emperic semantical true
argumentations.
With this I will say - I don´t know if the Kensingtone Stone is genuin or a
fake. I do know however that if it comes to the language used in the
runescript - either the person or persons faking an old runescript are to
be really good linguist(better than most of persons discussing old nordic
language with or without a degree here in this site), or else the stone as
a runstone most be considered to be genuin - If the latter alternative is
the truth than the next question no one discussed completely must be were
the stone made were it was found or was it transported there later? If the
stone is a fake than there are other question to be answered - Did there
exist one single person round the place were it was found being as good
linguist as to outshine most of the people with degrees in nordic language.
The last statement I make out of the fact that even those who have tried to
use sentense written in Wessén Elias "Svensk spraakhistoria 1, ljudlaera
och ordboesjningslaera chapter I - IV either can´t have understood what
they have read or haven´t checked Wessen´s references or have forgotten
what they themself have read...
I don´t know if the Kensingtone Stone is genuin - but as well as Wessén
knew I know that there are parts of Sweden were the old language didn´t
change the way it did in the rest of Sweden. At least three different
"landskap" could have had people who would have used word and "spelling" in
funark(runscript) as the message in the Kensingtone Stone. Those three
parts are Bohuslaen, Dalsland or Vaermland. But could is a possibility not
a proven fact.
Inger E Johansson BA History
Leif Roar Moldskred
In soc.culture.nordic Inger Johansson <ingere.j...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> With this I will say - I don´t know if the Kensingtone Stone is genuin or a
> fake. I do know however that if it comes to the language used in the
> runescript - either the person or persons faking an old runescript are to
> be really good linguist(better than most of persons discussing old nordic
> language with or without a degree here in this site), or else the stone as
> a runstone most be considered to be genuin
Uhm - I can't say i know much about this supposed runestone outside of
what I've picked up in this discussion - but it seems to me that
although every single lingustic deviation from the norm can be
_explained away_ by referring to verious dialects etc. (and I would be
surprised if it couldn't - there's a _lot_ of dialects in
Scandinavia), they can _also_ be explained by an ordinary
English-speaking swede trying to make it appear to be old-Swedish.
Leif Roar Moldskred
=============================================================
le...@stud.ntnu.no Dimna or: Steinberget 35A
(+47) 73 50 94 31 N-6065 Ulsteinvik N-7018 Trondheim
=============================================================
Unhappy the land that is in need of heroes
- Bertolt Brech
=============================================================
Jan Böhme
bg...@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>You should be able to do better that this. The Encyclopedia may accurately
>indicate where the consensus was at the time, but little more. Quote from
>specialized literature please.
>None of your arrogant claims can stand to scrutiny. Your reinventing the
>wheel is tiresome. Your general expertise in this general area is no
>substitute to some minimal research on this particular inscription, this
>particular dialect, and this particular time period. You haven't done it.
>Admit it. It is totally ridiculous to expect such a unique inscription to
>conform to your highly subjective idea of "what it should be".
Dear Yuri,
I think that you have misunderstood the object of my postings in this
thread. I have no intention in the world to convince _you_ that the
stone is a hoax. I may be daft, but I am not _that_ daft. I know when
I argue with a Receiver of the Revealed Knowledge.
My object was to make clear to _other_ readers of the thread that
there are numerous, sometimes mutually incompatible, ad hoc
assumptions that have to be taken to salvage the stone as genuine, and
that the most parsimonious interpretation is to regard the stone as a
product of the late 19th century, both in terms of language and its
general cultural attitude, and that the circumstances behind the
stone, its language, and the cultural attutides underlying it are
clearly at variance with our general knowledge about a) runestones and
b) the period in question.
As far as I can tell myself, I have done as good a job as I can out of
it. So I can hereafter go on to worthier pursuits.
BTW, volume XVI of the Swedish National Encyclopedia, which contains
the articles "runes" and "runestones" is from 1995.
Jan Böhme
Jan Andersson
In article <5smt0q$4c4$2...@news.datakom.su.se>, Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) writes:
>hmcc...@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote:
>
>>Fridrik Skulason writes, on the subject of the controversial phrase "10 mans"
>>in the Kensington Runestone,
>
>>>Just thought I would mention something. In modern day Icelandic (which is
>>>closer to Old Norse than the modern-day Scandinavian languages), the
>>>phrases "10 menn" and "10 manns" both exist, but have different meanings -
>>>the first one meaning "10 adult males", but the second one meaning "10
>>>people, probably of mixed gender, and possibly including children".
>
>>>I don't know how old the use of the word "manns" is, or if a similar
>>>usage exists or existed in the various Scandinavian languages or dialects,
>>>but it would be interesting to know.
>
>>the inscription has "10 man" (red with blood
>>and dead) in line 7, but "10 mans" (by the sea looking after our ship)
>>in line 10.
>
>and likely to be a recent invention. No similar construction exists in
>the Continental Scandinavian languges.
>
>
>So I can't see how it could explain the usage of a mixed party of
>Norwegians and people from southern Sweden, I'm afraid.
>
>Jan Böhme
>
"En båt med tio mans besättning"
"A boat with a ten man crew" (litterarly)
This is contemporary Swedish, altough the "s" in "mans" probably
is a somewhat archaic construction. I'm sure you guys in this thread
will be eager to explain this (in two completely different ways).
/JA
PS. Sorry about the long inclusion, but couldn't
see how to cut it without losing the context needed.
Jan Böhme
yu...@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se (Jan Böhme) wrote on 1997/08/04 in
><5s4plv$48g$2...@news.datakom.su.se>
>> Could you then provide me with _one single instance_ of a Scandinavian
>> scholar with a degree in nordic language history or runology who has
>> ever even left open the possibility that the inscription be genuine?
>>
>> Yours, impatiently
>>
>> Jan Böhme
>Yes, Jan, I know how impatient you are to see yourself PROVEN WRONG. Wait
>no longer, my poor misguided friend...
>This should put paid to more of your uninformed claims about Kensinton
>Rune Stone (KRS). I hope at some point you will realize just how
>wrongheaded you're being, and how ignorant you sound when you so
>arrogantly pretend to pronounce opinions on the subject you apparently
>know so little about.
>Writing about Wahlgren, the main recent "debunker" of the KRS, Nilsestuen
>(1994) says the following about this quite an unscrupulous character:
>"In his reviews [of Hall:1982], Wahlgren did not discuss a single fact
>regarding the linguistic and runic elements that Hall brought forth. He
>ignored an impressive part of the professional community who have defended
>Kensington, including [listen carefully, Jan!] the Swedish philologist and
>lexicographer Hjalmar Lindroth, the Norwegian philologist Gustav Indrebo,
>and William Thalbitzer of Copenhagen, who was an accomplished linguist,
>and researched the Greenland runes, and was very familiar with medieval
>Scandinavian languages. In addition, Professor of Old Icelandic Stefan
>Einarson was very open-minded about the possibility that Kensington was
>genuine" (p. 95)
>So, Jan, how about admitting it when you're proven "ded" wrong? How about
>swallowing your pride for once, eh?
This is not what I, or anyone else in academia means by finding anyone
who..etc. What you do here, is that to quote a pro-stone proponent, wh
_claims_ that X, Y and Z defended the stone. This is not quite the
same at all.
For example, some proponents of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, that is
people who believe that man has evolved through a phase in water, and
that all man's distinctive features can by explained by this aquatic
phase, a year ago proudly announced that the very noted physical
anthropologist, Dr Philip Tobias, had converted and now favoured this
hypothesis. The hypothesis is, incidentally, defended by its
proponents with ad hoc arguments very similar in technique to those
being used by the Kensington boosters.
Only problem was, that when someone finally asked the old man himself,
he was very surprised, and had certainly done no such thing.
So you have to dig up something these old chaps committed themselves
to in print to count, I'm afraid. What stone enthusiasts _claim_ that
they thought won't do.
>In addition, I've found the following bibliographic reference:
>Thalbitzer, William Carl, TWO RUNIC STONES, FROM GREENLAND AND MINNESOTA,
>Smithsonian Institution Miscellaneous Collections 116/3. [A translation of
>TO FJAERNE RUNESTENE FRA GRONLAND OG AMERIKA, Danske Studier, 1946-1947.]
>In this runological study, Thalbitzer compared a west Greenlandic stone
>with the KRS, and found significant resemblances between the two. Aware of
>the controversies with the KRS, he preferred, in this article, not to take
>a clear position in support of the KRS, but he leaves open the possibility
>that it is genuine.
This seems to be a bona fide reference, which you claims leaves the
question open. I'll check out on Thalbitzer and his work, if I can get
hold of the publication.
Jan Böhme
Steinar Midtskogen
[Jan Andersson]
> "En båt med tio mans besättning"
> "A boat with a ten man crew" (litterarly)
>
> This is contemporary Swedish, altough the "s" in "mans" probably
> is a somewhat archaic construction. I'm sure you guys in this thread
> will be eager to explain this (in two completely different ways).
Alright, it's just an ordinary genitive (of description), that is
something else.
--
Steinar Midtskogen, stud.scient. informaticae; http://www.ifi.uio.no/~steinarm/
Jan Böhme
Hu McCulloch
Henrik Erno/ writes:
>hmcc...@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote:
>>Fridrik Skulason writes, on the subject of the controversial phrase "10 mans"
>>in the Kensington Runestone,
>>
>>>Just thought I would mention something. In modern day Icelandic (which is
>>>closer to Old Norse than the modern-day Scandinavian languages), the
>>>phrases "10 menn" and "10 manns" both exist, but have different meanings -
>>>the first one meaning "10 adult males", but the second one meaning "10
>>>people, probably of mixed gender, and possibly including children".
>>
>>>I don't know how old the use of the word "manns" is, or if a similar
>>>usage exists or existed in the various Scandinavian languages or dialects,
>>>but it would be interesting to know.
>>
>>Excellent! This would explain why
>>the inscription has "10 man" (red with blood
>>and dead) in line 7, but "10 mans" (by the sea looking after our ship)
>>about why "man" might be used instead of "men" or "moen"),
>>but the party back at the ship, 14 days journey from the stone,
>>included boys or maybe even women. The latter would
>>even tie in well with Nielsen's reading of the long word
>>in the second line as opthagelsefard, a journey of acquisition,
>>or taking-up (land). If these were would-be settlers, at least
>>a few of them might have brought their families, but
>>would have left the women and children
>>behind in relative security while they ventured
>>on to see how docile the natives were. (Not
>>very, as it turned out.)
>Oh, dear. Now, our Bohuslen-speaking Norsemen, not only using
>*Jutlandic* words forms, they also using words found in modern
>Icelandic.
>It is no wonder that they ended up in Minnesota, with the language
>they were supposed to speak, they propably could not even understand each other.
>Hilarious, indeed.
>Aspecially, since the Bohuslen dialect is an East-scandiavian
>language while icelandic is west-scandinavian it is pretty odd
>that they should retained aa West-scandinavian form not used in
East-scandinavian language anno 1362.
Please enlighten me as to where the alleged demarcation line
between East-Scandinavian and West-Scandinavian language
could be found in 1362. Was it the modern Norwegian-Swedish
border? Or the Bohuslaen-West Goetland border?
While I'm sure Bergen and Stockholm must have had
distinct dialects, it would be my guess that everything in
between was pretty much a continuum of dialects, and that
Bohuslansk would be more like the language of adjacent
Folden (Oslo area) than like that of Stockholm and
the Baltic.
Inger Johansson, posting 11 Aug. at 14:23 GMT,
claims that bohuslaenningar born prior to
1930 (even when Bohuslaen had long been
part of modern Sweden) can be said to speak
"halfnorwegian". In the 14th century when it was
actually part of Norway for a while, might its dialect
not have been even a little more "West-Scandinavian"?
-- Hu McCulloch
Econ Dept
Ohio State U
mccul...@osu.edu
Yuri Kuchinsky
My Internet service provider had some technical problems recently, and
this article that I tried to post 4 days ago apparently was not posted. At
least DejaNews hasn't received it as yet. So here it is again (unchanged).
Has anyone seen it before? If so, my apologies for duplication.
Best wishes,
Yuri.
p.s. the title certainly appears ironic now...
Subject: KRS: how the historical evidence was nearly lost
Date: 7 Aug 1997 21:12:26 GMT
Organization: Cybertrends
Lines: 233
Message-ID: <5sddnq$kfv$1...@trends.ca>
Kensington Rune Stone: how the historical truth was nearly lost.
By Yuri Kuchinsky.
Kensigton Rune Stone is an extremely important historical relic. It is a
part of North American heritage that can cast considerable light on what
really went on in some parts of precolumbian America. It can also provide
us with a good case study of how scholarly process can work -- or
sometimes fail to work -- in this quite controversial field of American
prehistory where evidence is often scarce and confusing, the opinions are
often quite heated, and the historical truth not so easy to establish.
Every little bit of evidence is important in this field, and Kensington
Rune Stone provides us with a substantial amount, I believe...
Jan Bohme, a Swedish philologist, has recently contributed to these
discussions, and I find his contributions very revealing. He presented
quite a barrage of arguments against the authenticity of the KRS, and I
and others will deal with all of them in due time. Meanwhile, I would like
to present another overview of the Stone's recent history, and how it was
treated by the academic establishment. This is based on my recent
rereading of THE KENSINGTON RUNESTONE VINDICATED, by Rolf Nilsestuen,
University Press of America, 1994. (The author now also has a webpage
where his arguments can be found in greater detail at
http://members.aol.com/kensrune
This is a very well researched book that deals quite adequately with all
arguments against KRS's authenticity, and contains abundant citations of
recent literature.
Jan, being a specialist in medieval Scandinavian history and linguistics,
presents mostly linguistic arguments. He, very typically for his
compatriots, almost completely disregards the circumstances of the
discovery of the KRS near Kensington, Minnesota. I would like to stress
here that _all_ linguistic arguments against the authenticity of the Stone
have been proven invalid by the scholars like Sivert N. Hagen, and more
recently by Prof. Robert A. Hall, a distinguished Cornell University
linguist, and Richard Nielsen who dedicated a lifetime of research to
KRS. The proof is in the books that were published on the subject
recently. Citations have been given already.
So, for now, I will deal here mostly with how the Stone was discovered and
what happened next. Linguistic arguments aside, this alone should strongly
indicate authenticity.
The Stone would have probably never been found if not for one tree that
the immigrant farmer Olof Ohman found very difficult to get out of the
ground as he was clearing a field near Kensington, in the fall of 1898.
When the tree was finally uprooted, it proved to have been growing over a
big flat stone buried in the ground beneath it. The roots of the tree were
entwined around the stone. This is not disputed by anyone at all. A great
number of witnesses verified this. Some later critics tried to challenge
the age of the tree, true, but it was obviously at least a few years old.
Best reports indicate that the tree was around 70 years old.
Ohman and his young son Edward, who was helping him in the work, noticed
that the Stone had unusual markings on it. The news travelled fast, and
all the neighbourhood soon heard about this unusual discovery. People came
to look at the Stone and the uprooted tree that Ohman displayed for all to
see. There's no doubt about this, as the Minnesota Historical Society
investigated all this very carefully in 1908-1910. These old reports of
the Society are readily available.
Nobody had the slightest idea what those markings represented. A copy of
the inscription was made, and sent to the University of Minnesota. It was
a very poor copy. A Prof. Breda of said University, who actually didn't
know much about runes, didn't like what he saw. And this is how the
confusion began...
"Unfortunately, Breda knew very little about runes and was unable to read
some of the words or any of the numbers, including the year." (op. cit. p.
13)
In his great wisdom, Breda concluded that the inscription was purportedly
from the 11th century (since he managed to make out the word "Vinland").
And since the inscription wasn't written in the Old Norse of the 11th
century, he concluded on this basis: a fake! Believe it or not... He
actually _never bothered_ to take a short trip to Kensington to see the
Stone or the tree associated with it for himself! Now, this is some
methodology... This is the dedicated and dispassionate quest for the past!
And thus began the chain of absurdities, misunderstandings, plain
stupidities, errors, and outright distortions that the opponents of the
Stone seemed to have perpetuated even unto the present day....
Oh, yes, the authorities in Scandinavia were also consulted at the time by
the good Prof. Breda. One should give him credit at least for this... I
suppose it is easier to send a letter than to go and look at an unusual
discovery made only a hundred miles away from home... And this is how
Prof. Rygh of Oslo also got involved at the time. He was equally negative.
To give him some benefit of the doubt a) he was considerably further from
the discovery and it would have been a little harder for him to make the
trip, and b) the copy he was sent (most likely the very same one as used
by Breda) was chock full of errors. In 1965, it was discovered that the
copy he had to work with was hopeless.
"...the inscription from which Rygh translated contained 33 (!) errors
including the omission of two whole words." (p. 15)
Can you believe this now? All these glaring errors for an inscription
consisting of all of 65 words? So this is what Jan's "competent
Scandinavian professionals" had to work with! This is how Jan's vaunted
"consensus" was formed. Need I say more?
It also needs to be noted that Rygh was not a runologist or philologist
(p. 14). He was an archaeologist. But he was apparently never informed
about the circumstances of the discovery of this artifact! And he didn't
bother to ask, it seems...
So here we go... This is the methodology to follow! One sorry academic
"investigator", Breda, proved to be, it seems, due to his unbelievable
laziness and shiftlessness, a veritable discredit to his profession. The
other one, Rygh, was passing judgements about the area he was not really
competent in, while working in the dark because of the errors in the
copy... Quite a chain of errors, indeed...
You may have wondered why the Minnesota Historical Society investigated
the discovery 10 years later, so late after the fact... Well, we certainly
should be very grateful it investigated at all... Because it needs to be
said that after the dreadful fiasco of its first interface with the
Academe, the KRS was in fact very nearly "buried back into the earth"...
Yes, dear friends, the logic of events tended to point inevitably to this
outcome. I'm sure that none of us would have ever learned about this
unusual artifact if not for a chance event...
When the good farmer Ohman learned from wise professors that the Stone was
"forged", presumably by his own person, he scratched his head and decided
to forget all about it... I guess the fact that the cattle had to be fed
outweighed by far most other considerations for him? So he made a
_doorstep_ of the Stone, and proceeded to other pressing business!
Apparently he was heard to say that if the learned professors thought that
the stone is not what it's supposed to be, then they must be right in any
case... (p. 167) They were the ones who were wise in books, while he could
just sign his own name, and usually relied on others to compose the few
letters he needed to write...
So this most likely would have been the end of this story... if not for a
young graduate student named Hjalmar Holand who was doing some
sociological research in 1907 in the area. Everyone in the big world
outside Kensington had already forgotten about the curious relic by that
time. But Holand was told about it by some farmers, and he decided to
investigate for himself. The result was a lifetime committment to this
historical artifact and its history. This is how we know what we know now.
The history was rescued from oblivion by a chance event...
Holland published his first article about this in 1908, in a Chicago
newspaper. Thanks to him, public attention was woken up, and the MHS
carefully investigated the circumstances of the discovery. The conclusion
of the Society was that the Stone was the real thing.
"...the MHS Committee ... in 1910 and again in 1913, unanimously declared
its conclusion that it [the KRS] is genuine." (p. 22)
Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how its conclusion could have been
otherwise... Since most of the numerous eyewitnesses were still around,
and the Stone attracted plenty of local attention at the time, and all the
participants in this story were very well known in the small community as
hard-working and honest men, the facts of the discovery were all there to
see. It was the _tree_ that was the deciding factor, most likely!
Nilsestuen himself grew up on the farm in this very same area, and he adds
a unique perspective to his book because of this. He knows these people
very well. These are not some sort of con artists. These are upstanding
and deeply religious people who swore out affidavits testifying that all
they said was true. Why would they commit perjury? Indeed, the only motive
ever suggested by the "debunkers" is... as a prank! This is really very
insulting to suggest that these people, these simple farmers, would lie
under oath for such a reason... None of them ever stood to profit from any
of this. What kind of "conspirators" were they? Really...
I would suggest that all linguistic and runological evidence aside,
supposing that the competent scholars may legitimately disagree about the
inscription itself, the benefit of the doubt should CLEARLY be on the side
of the conclusions reached by the Minnesota Historical Society at that
time. In my opinion, the circumstances of the discovery, by themselves,
give a clear indication that the Stone is genuine.
But the linguistinc evidence is FAR FROM BEING EQUIVOCAL. This needs to be
dealt with separately, but the linguistic evidence ALSO clearly supports
the truth that the Stone is authentic.
And what if Hjalmar Holand did not stumble upon this Stone way back in
1907? What if he passed it by? What do you think would have happened?
Another piece of ancient American history dug up and then buried back into
the ground? Quite a few of those... Yes, I think this would have been
quite likely.
We should really ask, Why and how such things can happen in scholarship in
this field of study? Why the politicisation, the angry taking of sides,
the vitriol, the uninformed dismissals, the refusal to deal with reality?
Yes, friends, these things do happen in this field often enough. That's
why the story of the Kensington Rune Stone must be looked at in detail.
Quite apart from what it can tell us about medieval history, it can also
tell us a lot about the way our scholarly community in this particular
field (but perhaps not only?) often proceeds when looking at such
questions.
It should also be noted that great many of the academic opponents of the
Stone's authenticity reside in Scandinavia. Why this is so is an
interesting and far from a very simple question. Jan of course is terribly
wrong, and quite uninformed when he says that some sort of a "unanimous"
academic consensus exists in Scandinavia against the Stone. I have the
proof to show him wrong. This proof was not hard to find... And this is
not the first time he came up with an ill-informed, and a rather
prejudiced statement... But it is true that the Scandinavian scholars seem
to be more biased against this artifact than other researchers. The errors
of Prof. Rygh die hard.
It seems to me that _classism_ is mainly to blame here. After all, the
haughty Scandinavian upper class academic intellectuals always looked down
with thinly disguised contempt on the "illiterate and oafish farmers" who
chose to immigrate to America to escape from poverty, and from the
considerable oppression they were subjected to by their ruling classes in
the "Old Country". What could these city snobs expect from the "stupid
country bumpkins", their less fortunate compatriots, who went to carve out
by their sweat and extremely hard work farmsteads in the Minnesota
bushland? "Nothing good, let me tell you..." They found a Rune Stone?
"Yeah, sure..."
This is the sort of attitude that I see underlying Jan's arrogant
comments...
I will continue with my reply to Jan as the days go by...
Best regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.io.org/~yuku
Hu McCulloch
Henrik Erno/ <er...@biobase.dk> writes:
>hmcc...@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote:
>>Please enlighten me as to where the alleged demarcation line
>>between East-Scandinavian and West-Scandinavian language
>>could be found in 1362. Was it the modern Norwegian-Swedish
>>border? Or the Bohuslaen-West Goetland border?
>No, (see below).
>>While I'm sure Bergen and Stockholm must have had
>>distinct dialects, it would be my guess that everything in
>>between was pretty much a continuum of dialects, and that
>>Bohuslansk would be more like the language of adjacent
>>Folden (Oslo area) than like that of Stockholm and
>>the Baltic.
>Precisely, and Folden is not in area of westscandinavian language.
>(And in 14th century the split between the *east* scandinavian
>languages had allready been established. Norwegian, danish and swedish
>were allready seperate languages, not dialects.)
So did the Folden area speak Danish, or Swedish,
if it was not linguistically "Norwegian"?
>>Inger Johansson, posting 11 Aug. at 14:23 GMT,
>>claims that bohuslaenningar born prior to
>>1930 (even when Bohuslaen had long been
>>part of modern Sweden) can be said to speak
>>"halfnorwegian". In the 14th century when it was
>>actually part of Norway for a while, might its dialect
>>not have been even a little more "West-Scandinavian"?
>NO.
>The split between east and west scandinavian went down trough *norway*
>allready in the 9th centrury, with Viken and Bohuslen placed firmly
>in the east-scandinavian sphere. That the bohuslandics should start
>speaking westscandinavian in the 14th century is a large camel to
>have to swallow.
Henrik Ern¿
hmcc...@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote:
>Please enlighten me as to where the alleged demarcation line
>between East-Scandinavian and West-Scandinavian language
>could be found in 1362. Was it the modern Norwegian-Swedish
>border? Or the Bohuslaen-West Goetland border?
No, (see below).
>While I'm sure Bergen and Stockholm must have had
>distinct dialects, it would be my guess that everything in
>between was pretty much a continuum of dialects, and that
>Bohuslansk would be more like the language of adjacent
>Folden (Oslo area) than like that of Stockholm and
>the Baltic.
Precisely, and Folden is not in area of westscandinavian language.
(And in 14th century the split between the *east* scandinavian
languages had allready been established. Norwegian, danish and swedish
were allready seperate languages, not dialects.)
>Inger Johansson, posting 11 Aug. at 14:23 GMT,
>claims that bohuslaenningar born prior to
>1930 (even when Bohuslaen had long been
>part of modern Sweden) can be said to speak
>"halfnorwegian". In the 14th century when it was
>actually part of Norway for a while, might its dialect
>not have been even a little more "West-Scandinavian"?
NO.
The split between east and west scandinavian went down trough *norway*
allready in the 9th centrury, with Viken and Bohuslen placed firmly
in the east-scandinavian sphere. That the bohuslandics should start
speaking westscandinavian in the 14th century is a large camel to
have to swallow.
But if someone is willing to believe in autencity of KRS then,
one must be in the habit of doing so.
Yuri Kuchinsky
I appeal to all posters interested in this subject to refrain from
personal comments as much as possible. Please take such matters to private
email, or keep it in the newsgroup from which you are posting. Such posts
are frowned upon in sci.archaeology and in soc.history.medieval.
Only valid arguments dealing with the evidence at hand will contribute
positively to this discussion.
Respectfully,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
-=- | is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
in Toronto | and the most modern serpents." F. Nietzsche
----- my webpage is for now at: http://www.io.org/~yuku -----
Inger Johansson
Before condeming people who discuss this subject at least one could expect
that those who claim to be expert more than other - and by that try to tell
that their degree gives them more value than other people with degrees, one
could expect at least that those so called expert know what they are
talking about. For instance now one having a bit knowledge of Scandinavian
dialects would have claimed that Bohuslaendska is an eastscandinavic
dialect. - It´s a east Norwegiandialect as can be shown by books below.
There is a dissertation written of Anna Westerberg in Uppsala 1991. The
titel is: "Utvecklingen a gammalt a
framfoer ld och nd" but the dissertation has more to tell if You look at
the maps of linguistic variations in southern and middle Sweden. One of
many maps that are interesting is marked 189:
svenska dialekter karta 3 Dialekt och folkminnesarkivet, Uppsala 1991. This
map is one out of many others, showing that there are a distinct difference
between the coast north of Uddevalla in Bohuslaen and eastern Sweden.....
Than there is some other thing I don´t understand how anyone claiming to
know swedish linguisthistory claims this withouthaving read the one and
only top schoolar in this subject: Elias Wessén, Svensk sprakhistoria I,
Ljudlara och ordbojningslara, 1962 chapter I - chapter IV. Especially
chapter I,2a "fornnorskan" There he make it clear that Bohuslaen, Dalsland
and Haerjedalen have the same differensis in changing intonation as
eastnorway
- on the other hand there are few changes in pronouncation in rest of
Sweden when the changes are to be seen in both westnorwegian and
eastnorwegian dialects. Those changes that are "late" - during 1200 AD -
1400 AD are to be found in westscandinavian dialects. The eastscandinavian
dialects have more incommon with the change of the "german" language.
Have a nice day and please try to use proper discussionmetods.
Inger E Johansson BA History.
Inger Johansson
There are three things that ((out of my experience of the difference in
talking from older times in till today between Bohuslaen(north of Uddevalla
excluding the islands) and for example the people from Vaestergotland))
makes the Kensington Runstones autencitet plausibel:
The so called "Viken" in older times was a part of Bohuslaen and Norway
south of todays Oslo. The old Arendal (before the more known Arendal in
todays Norway was inhabited) is situated north of Tanumshede and Grebbestad
in a village named Sannaes. On the farm Arendal there is the grave in which
Olav Kyrre (as You know the latest(?) Vikingking of Norway) was buried
before transportation to Trondheim. In Arendal there are different places
not known to the archeological world - and belive me we who know them
aren´t interested in having them wellknown. But one of them is an open
"klava" usually called "munkeklava" and an other is a cave only a few
meters from where people walk with an opening backwards with manmade
stairs.
The point is
a) that in older times this part of Bohuslaen was a kingdome of it´s own
under the Norwegian king.
b) People used as late as the generation born before 1930 to talk not only
halfnorwegian but using words that You only can find in todays Icelandic
language or in king Alfreds Orosius or his will. Among this words nowadays
used even in other parts of Sweden words like "lite till mans" "tremans"
"tvaamans" "attamans" and so on the words except from the first word almost
always have to do with things in connection to the Sea. The same goes for
the "ll" diskussion and all the rest that have linguistical applications.
c) The only place I till today have heard people using any sentence making
a distinction between normaenn and (Vaest-)gotar is in Tanums "kommun". But
there they often use that distinction - never ever to use for example
"norskar" as people in other part of Sweden use. We do have many old tales
in Sannaes - many of them are about normaenn(not norrmaen) and people from
Vaestgoetland in older times. You have to know that people in Sannaes often
get old. I spend my summerholidays in Sannaes. I am 48 years old. In my
childhood during the midfifties I met man being almost one hundred years
old telling me that they themself had heard that and that when they round
1856-1860 had sitten in an ancestors knee(the ancestor than was hundred
years old). So I have myself heard things from a person born 1853 who had
heard things that had happened in Europe during the French Revolution by a
person who had been there. (We bohuslaenningar are sometimes different from
other)
Those above written doesn´t make the Kensingtone Runestone genuin but it
makes the possibilitu of a genuin stone higher than what has been
considered.
If the stone is genuin - however - I am not sure that that circumstances
would make the finding true and genuin - I doubt that the stone were made
where it was found. But that´s an other question.
Inger E.
----------
> Från: Jan Böhme <Jan....@REMOVE.THIS.imun.su.se>
> hmcc...@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote:
>
> >Fridrik Skulason writes, on the subject of the controversial phrase "10
mans"
> >in the Kensington Runestone,
>
> >>Just thought I would mention something. In modern day Icelandic (which
is
> >>closer to Old Norse than the modern-day Scandinavian languages), the
> >>phrases "10 menn" and "10 manns" both exist, but have different
meanings -
> >>the first one meaning "10 adult males", but the second one meaning "10
> >>people, probably of mixed gender, and possibly including children".
>
> >>I don't know how old the use of the word "manns" is, or if a similar
> >>usage exists or existed in the various Scandinavian languages or
dialects,
> >>but it would be interesting to know.
>
> >Excellent! This would explain why
> >the inscription has "10 man" (red with blood
> >and dead) in line 7, but "10 mans" (by the sea looking after our ship)
> >in line 10.
>
D. Spencer Hines
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> D. Spencer Hines (shi...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : This thread has become a good example of the sort of discussion that, in
> : an under-graduate class, is truncated by the professor --- for
> : irrelevancy and stupidity.
> :
> : In a graduate class it would either never arise --- or be laughed off
> : immediately, as an obvious hoax.
> :
> : But here, with a few obstinate and un-or-semi-educated people, who have
> : axes to grind and who want to "see the game continue" it can roll on for
> : a very long time, on nothing much but fluff.
>
> So why don't you provide some serious arguments here besides your sour
> grapes? The problem with the KRS debunkers is that the recent scholarly
> literature is against them.
>
> Your huffing and puffing is poor substitute for evidence that would back
> your case...
>
> Yuri.
Yuri,
Here it is --- one more time.
YOU are the ADVOCATE for the position that the so-called "Kensington
Stone" is "authentic" and was carved and deposited by a group of
Norsemen in 1362 --- in what later became the State of Minnesota.
As the ADVOCATE for that position --- the full burden of proof falls on
your shoulders. WE are not required to disprove each of your wild-eyed
and half-baked theories. YOU must prove them to our satisfaction --- or
admit failure. WE are not even required to present a case.
The situation is analogous to a Court of Law, where the prosecuting
attorney must prove, "beyond a reasonable doubt" --- in a criminal trial
--- which is the appropriate scholarly standard here --- that the
defendant is guilty as charged. The defense attorneys are NOT required
to prove a ruddy thing. All they need to do is raise some reasonable
doubt in the mind/s of a single juror or jurors that the prosecutor has
not proved her or his case.
If you do not understand that very simple principle of scholarly
advocacy and proof --- then you need to go back to school, and/or the
drawing-board.
Again, the sole *gravamen* [burden] for proving that Norsemen carved the
"Kensington Stone" in 1362 and deposited it in "Minnesota" to be found
in 1898 by a group of "simple farmers" ---- is on your shoulders.
Show us the Evidence that you keep prattling about ---- with your stream
of consciousness interior monologues and intellectual peregrinations
---- or take your most disingenuous and duplicitous traveling roadshow
of misinformation and half-truths to another venue ---- where you can
find the requisite number of fools to listen attentively --- and with
the degree of respect, you seem to require, for your own psychic
equilibrium.
Without further delay and dissimulation, THIS is the time to get off
your rear end and Show Us The Evidence or sit down and shut up. Your
credibility in these matters is nil and you do not appear to have
learned the rules of thought ---- i.e., logic, which is characteristic,
and par for the course, with respect to the un-educated and frequently
for the autodidact.
Hu McCulloch
Indeed, SN Hagen, "The Kensington Runic Inscription", in _Speculum:
A Journal of Mediaeval Studies_, 1950, pp. 321-356, at 329, writes
"In line 10 we have 10 mans, 'a ten-man crew', and this is certainly
no scribal error; 10 manns is still current in Modern Icelandic."
Hagen seems to be saying "crew" is implicit, and that
10 mans is gentitive, "a crew of 10 men". But it's my
understanding from Fridrik Skulason's post
that Icelandic "10 manns" to mean "10 persons of
either gender and possibly diverse ages" is not necessarily
genitive at all. Is there also an Icelandic genitive 10 manns, or has Hagen
misunderstood the nuance of the Icelandic expression?
Hagen's conclusion, BTW, reads
"A future generation of scholars will find it hard to understand
how an older one could have been so blind. They will find the
inscription as genuine as those of Gallehus and Glavendrup,
Stentoften and Ro"k, Tune and Eggjum, and they will
consider it important. They will find it neither too long
nor too well preserved to be genuine." (351)
It was Hagen who first suggested that Kensington might
relate to the dialect of Bohuslaen and West Go"tland,
an idea carried further by Cornell linguist (emeritus)
Robt A Hall (1982, 1994) and by Richard Nielsen.
Nielsen, BTW, has two additional articles I was unaware of,
in Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers 1993 and 1994,
further discussing the dialect and runes of the Kensington
stone. These are in addition to his
1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989 ESOP papers.