Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> says in
news:9s77a1ptfief648via4bd98imjkquak3mt@xxxxxxx:

> Bluster.
>
> I don't think either of us would rely on the KRS museum site as
> an absolute source of information.
>
> Now, how about you citing the site?

Someone else here already did, so when you give Daryl all that
information he asked for I will give you the site.

> Now, what is your evidence for the letters being retouched? I
> bet you don't have any.

See other post


>>I don't know if the number is 1362, 1162, 1262 or 1662 on the
>>original stone, based on the latest photos a combination of
>>retouching could have resulted in a different date. Similarly
>>other feasible dates could be 1_12, 1_12, 1_62
>>A cast of the stone should have been immediately made by the
>>historical society.
>
> Great.
>
> What do you think they would have used? Certainly not silicone
> rubber.

Plaster of paris.

> What do you think that (say) plaster of paris would do to any
> chance of dating the surface of the stone?

Dating did not exist then.

> As it was, the
> scrubbing of the stone with oil (as advised by the Smithsonian)
> put paid to the possibility of using some of the more modern
> dating techniques.

The carbon on the stone is of multiple sources and useless, the stone
carvers removed material but did not add it. The wear patters are a
combination of time spent underground, possibly artificial wearing bt
the forger, time spent as a door step to an outhouse, and finally
whatever your bud 'Holand' did.

>>Weathering induced as a result of physical wear could alter some
>>of the conclusion.
>>Retouching the stone might alter some of the meaning.

Notice BTW that I know how to snip a post.
.

Relevant Pages