Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press

Eric Stevens wrote: 
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 12:21:11 +0200, "Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Eric Stevens wrote:  21f5a1p7dcq51rjqtidu5eu2vg1vh0uioe@xxxxxxx,

"Alaca" wrote:

David Johnson wrote:



Or, IOW, the whole tree root digression is pointless, even by the
rather low standards of KRS discussions...

David 

That is correct.
It was only relevant in the search for a perpetrator.


A parallel line of enquiry relates as to when it was perpetrated. This
bears directly on the question of the authenticity of the KRS.


No, tree age and rootmarks are useless as dating-
and authenticity tools and therefore irrelevant in the
KRS discussion.
It was only relevant once for the question if it was
possible that the finder made de KRS in the 27 (?)
preceding years.
If that was possible or not says nothing about the
authenticity of the stone.



The favourite forger in the minds of most people was Olaf Ohman. If he
didn't do it then it is much more difficult to identify a potential
forger. If one's forger remains no more than a hypothesis, built
around an unknown person, for the existence of whom there is no
evidence, then it is that much harder to claim the stone is a forgery.

Not so. It may be harder to build a convincing case against a particular person or persons; but the issue of authenticity or forgery is not much affected by the knowledge, or lack of same, of a potential forger.

Just look at the controversy that has swirled around Ohman as the forger. In some ways, separating the issue of authenticity/forgery from the issue of whodunnit simplifies the process, and makes it easier to approach the main issue scientifically and dispassionately.

--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... This bears directly on the question of the authenticity of the KRS. ... If one's forger remains no more than a hypothesis, built around an unknown person, for the existence of whom there is no evidence, then it is that much harder to claim the stone is a forgery. ... but the issue of authenticity or forgery is not much affected by the knowledge, or lack of same, of a potential forger. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >>>and authenticity tools and therefore irrelevant in the ... >>>KRS discussion. ... >> The favourite forger in the minds of most people was Olaf Ohman. ... Eric Stevens ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Final thoughts
    ... arguments against authenticity. ... KRS, which gave a strong pro-authenticity argument, but was seeking the ... can claim to be an expert on the runestone. ... believe it is highly likely that the Kensington Runestone is authentic. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: KRS: Final thoughts
    ... > arguments against authenticity. ... > KRS, which gave a strong pro-authenticity argument, but was seeking the ... > can claim to be an expert on the runestone. ... > believe it is highly likely that the Kensington Runestone is authentic. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • KRS: Final thoughts
    ... arguments against authenticity. ... KRS, which gave a strong pro-authenticity argument, but was seeking the ... can claim to be an expert on the runestone. ... believe it is highly likely that the Kensington Runestone is authentic. ...
    (sci.archaeology)