Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press



Per Rønne wrote:
>
> 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.

What you and Alan may consider "first" now isn't what the original
post referred to. Please understand that a local minor publications
doesn't get world wide exposure - therefor it is quite impossible to
know about them in other parts of the world. This means, only what is
in the original post can be related to and replies, NOT adding further
information, can only be understood in the context of the original
material posted, as per Kjetil Rå Hauge. As I said to Alan, I might be
bloody good, but a mind reader I'm not.

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

Aha.... and pray tell how could it have found it's way to where it was
found some 100 years before any other known European people visited
the area? That it had the text on the stone already at that time at
least? THAT is the problem deniers have to overcome, though how they
can, I have no idea.
>
> Had it been written in Old Norse {actually: Old Icelandic} it had been
> possible to consider it genuine.

Realistically NO part of the runes, language or dialect plays a part
at all for other than further knowledge of the language, and extent of
their travels in 1362. It does NOT overcome the problem of it being
impossible to have been buried with the text on it by a "forger", at
least some 100 years before it was written! That is something that is
quite impossible to do - therefor arguments that does NOT overcome
that established fact are meaningless.

> Futhermore, the runes used to describe
> numbers aren't used until the late 1800s

....or so some people still believe. The claim above requires a view
that all that has been found is all the knowledge there was - that
nothing new can ever be learned from new finds. This is truly a head
in the sand view!

> - in letters from the area
> where the Swedish immigrants came from. Let me quote from Lund Hansen's
> article:
>
> Men det endelige humanistiske hardfact som afliver stenen kommer her:
> sjældnest af alle runerne på stenen er de rune-tal som årstallet er
> skrevet med. De har ingen paralleller i middelalderens runeindskrifter.

That part has already been shown to be wrong as I understand it.

> Andre runeformer er i tidens løb blevet brugt til at angive tal, endda
> runerne selv der har repræsenteret tal ud fra deres placering i
> runerækken, men ingen har set ud som dem på Kensington-stenen.

Again this would have to be disputed as to accuracy.

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

Oh NO!! Not the Larssen papers again. The "logic" behind that is, - If
I write a rune row today, then it makes ALL older runes forgeries. The
Larssen papers have no bearing on anything at all relating to the KRS.
Well, perhaps in the respect that someone in 1883->5 had access to
more runes than are currently known today. This would hardly be
surprising and it would SUPPORT the KRS being genuine more than the
other way around.

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

Now please explain who had a time machine so they were able to bury
the stone with the text on it, at least some 100 + years before it was
written!

> Well, I hope you can read the Danish text quoted.

Danish isn't my strong point (they talk with a hot potato in their
mouth - and write accordingly :-), but I get the gist of it.

> The full text can be
> read at:
>
> http://www.weekendavisen.dk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050429/IDEER01/
> 504280354&SearchID=73209259122821

It is not available unless one registers - and I'm (relatively) spam
free, so I'm not about to change that.

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

So? It doesn't make what they write accurate or correct. Newspapers
rarely gets things right or report more than their preferred POV -
just look at the rubbish written by Erik Tunstad and that publication
is supposed to be at least one step more respectable than a mere
newspaper.


--
http://tinyurl.com/al225
http://tinyurl.com/alznw
.

Loading