Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 21:08:27 -0500, Tom McDonald
<tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 12:01:19 GMT,
>> nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Apparently on date Sun, 05 Jun 2005 20:56:45 +1200, Eric Stevens
>>><eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 14:08:24 GMT,
>>>>nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Apparently on date Fri, 3 Jun 2005 17:29:46 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
>>>>><smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>""Per R?nne"" <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Steve Marcus <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Per R?nne's post is certainly sufficient to constitute a hypothesis
>>>>>>>>regarding 1362 vs 1862 that is not facially erroneous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Compare the '3' in 1362 at page 9 with the pentatic numbers listed in on
>>>>>>>page 59 in your reference. Isn't the upper part of the 3 missing at page
>>>>>>
>>>>>>printed on the document). It is absolutely clear that _if_ the upper
>>>>>>portion of the pentatic number translated as "3" is missing (and it only
>>>>>>requires a minor chip or abrasion at the top of the rune to be missing),
>>>>>>then the originally carved pentatic number could easily have been an 8,
>>>>>>yielding a date of 1862.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've had a go at picturing this, on this website:
>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/9g3vt
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thankyou. I was hoping to find sufficient time to locate that URL or
>>>>similar. You will see that the rune for 3 is the same height as all
>>>>the other runes. It it was once a 6 it would have been a
>>>>conspicuouslly tall stand-out in the rune row. In any case, there is
>>>>no sign of damage to the stone immediately above it to suggest that
>>>>anything is missing.
>>>
>>>Er, that's what I said on my website there. The most important thing I said was
>>>that the stone itself would make this question obvious and doing it from a
>>>picture is really just speculation. It's also quite valid that the same (sort
>>>of) damage could include the other two strokes of the rune for "8".
>>>
>>
>> Short of examining the stone itself, the best way to resolve this
>> question will be Scott Wolter's macrophotographs. I've seen some and
>> the resolution of detail is impressive. Unfortunately I have seen none
>> which include the pentadic numbers.
>
> I don't know if it's Wolter's photos, but the Runestone Museum
>is selling a CD containing ca. 700 photographs of the stone. It's
>about $30 US.

http://www.runestonemuseum.org/OnlineReplicas.htm
"NEW!! Photo-Library of the Characters of the Kensington Runestone
by Scott F. Wolter CD-ROM $29.95"


Many thanks. I haven't looked there for a while.

I tried to order it but the link came up with a missing page. :-(



Eric Stevens

.

Loading