Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press

Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Per wrote:
> "The writer of the first article isn't described as a professor of
> archaeology - she may just be a journalist."
>
> NOTE: "first article" - in the original post there were TWO URL's to
> articles only the first is accessible without subscribing. It also
> happens to meet the criteria specified by Per: "first article" that he
> clearly states is "the writer". He is correct in all aspects other
> than gender of the author.
>
> It was at THIS point you insisted:
>
> "She *is* a professor of archaeology."
>
> In reply to Per, meaning the "she" that was mistakenly referred to as
> "she may just be a journalist" who was the "the writer" of the "first
> article" as that is the only "SHE" mentioned there that you can have
> referred to - the author of the article who just happens to be a HE.
> You need to be vastly more careful in how you write, IF you want to be
> understood in the way you may INTEND. (BTW, an article written by an
> Editor is generally called an "editorial", an "article" is written by
> a "journalist" or some other person.)

Actually, the first article in Weekendavisen was written by Lotte
Hedeager - a woman. The reply was written by Anders Lund Hansen - a man.
As I remember the original article, Lotte Hedeager wasn't mentioned as a
professor. Consequently, I thought she was a journalist. Especially so
since the KRS is clearly a fraud. Why else had it been written not only
in modern Swedish but also in the Swedish dialect spoken by the migrants
in the area where the stone was found?

Had it been written in Old Norse {actually: Old Icelandic} it had been
possible to consider it genuine. Futhermore, the runes used to describe
numbers aren't used until the late 1800s - in letters from the area
where the Swedish immigrants came from. Let me quote from Lund Hansen's
article:

Men det endelige humanistiske hardfact som afliver stenen kommer her:
sjældnest af alle runerne på stenen er de rune-tal som årstallet er
skrevet med. De har ingen paralleller i middelalderens runeindskrifter.
Andre runeformer er i tidens løb blevet brugt til at angive tal, endda
runerne selv der har repræsenteret tal ud fra deres placering i
runerækken, men ingen har set ud som dem på Kensington-stenen.

Men i 2003 hørte en årvågen lokalarkivar i den nordsvenske by Umeå om
stenen, og kom i tanke om et par breve han havde liggende i arkivet. De
er fra 1883 og -85 (altså 13 og 15 år før Kensingtonstenen blev fundet),
og var skrevet at et lokalt brødrepar, som var engageret i lokale
håndværker-laug og politik.

Brevene indeholder forskellige kode-alfabeter, herunder et par udgaver
af runerækkerne. Det har været koder som cirkulerede i nordsvenske
håndværkerkredse i slutningen af 1800-tallet. Og runerækkerne slutter af
med tallene fra 0 til 9 skrevet med nogle hidtil ukendte tal-runer. De
runer er præcis magen til talrunerne på Kensingtonstenen. De andre
usædvanlige runeformer fra stenen findes også eksakt magen til i de
svenske breve fra 1880erne. Og den svenske immigrant som angiveligt
fandt stenen, stammede fra det område, hvor de runeskrivende håndværkere
var aktive. Brevene er tilgængelige på nettet på Umeås Lokalarkivs
hjemmeside: http://www.sofi.se/daum/index.htx .
==

Well, I hope you can read the Danish text quoted. The full text can be
read at:

http://www.weekendavisen.dk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050429/IDEER01/
504280354&SearchID=73209259122821

BTW, Weekendavisen, formerly known as Berling Evening Times, is
Denmark's oldest newspaper. Founded 1749 - and the best and most serious
newspaper in Denmark.
--
Per Erik Rønne
.

Loading