Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press


"Per Rønne" <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:1gxaeos.1qkdtlzb38ht5N%spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> IEJ <Iejohansson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Sorry Per Erik,
>
> Simply put, Inger, I believe much more en the major Scandinavian
> expertise than in you. And for sure it is no coincidence that all
> encycklopædias call it a fake.

the major Scandinavian expertise hasn't concluded what they belive, only
linguists who missed that the four runes and 75% of the word they dispute
most to have existed in 14th century can be found in Medieval Age runes
respectively in one single document.......

You missed the most important thing of all for every scholar to keep in mind
doing a study or an analyse:
Never start with prejudice due to what other scholars told you. Do the study
and/or analyse yourself. There have been too many linguists leaning on other
linguists who simply forgotten that among the 9287 non Latin documents in
Svenskt Diplomatarium's register between 1200 and 1400; in Diplomatarium
Norwegicum for period 1319-1387 written by or for representatives of the
Folkunga Dynasty(1089 diplomas); in the Donationslängder for Vreta
Kloster(and other); in Forntida svenska legender(2 missiv of the origin
still exist known as 'Skänningeannalerna' as well as in Legendariet; in
Annals from monestries in Sweden and monestries under St Birgitta Order and
some other very important documents which you and the rigid naysayers
obviously never studied all but one word 'optakelsefard'/'optagelsefard' can
be found there. As for the word 'optakelse' it's used by St Birgitta as well
as for the modern word 'upptaga' when someone entered a convent and when
collect is taken during Service. When? Before 1420. But that's not all the
tithes collected from the three dioceses under Gardar See that still were
active in 1358-1362 has one 'name' in contemporary Norwegian church
documents and annals: Tiundetaka.
So don't try using the words and/or the runes when you dismiss KRS. There
simply isn't any better way to show that you and those you lean to haven't
done your/their homework.

Apart from that, it doesn't matter what you believe or not believe the truth
is still the truth no matter that it's me who wrote about it.


And btw - Wikipedia changed their Swedish page 17th March this year and the
article which refered to the so called Larson papers is now gone....
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensingtonstenen

>
> This I can say without having a MA in history or archaeology. "Just" a
> MSc in computer science.

I guess you didn't study computer science and systemprogramming in early
70th, am I right? I did. No matter that I have 'passed' other exams later on
but it's easier to be able to write your own programs when you are dealing
with so much data as you have to when studying and analysing medieval
documents.....

Inger E
> --
> Per Erik Rønne


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... Simply put, Inger, I believe much more en the major Scandinavian ... expertise than in you. ... Per Erik Rønne ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Grænlendinga þáttur
    ... >Please do show enough courage and step aside ... She doesn't fool anyone, and ... a bit outside their field of expertise, ... Because Inger has researched the ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: KRS lake
    ... Jerry T and Erik H, ... facts. ... Inger must be the fool. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Alaska on Ancient maps
    ... > David B, ... > are you telling us that you still lean to Erik H who hasn't shown any ... Nobody's stalking you, Inger. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Norse, Vatican and Vinland
    ... Taught? ... Occaionally one thing, regular usage an other. ... Inger E ... > Per Erik Rønne ...
    (sci.archaeology)