Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 13:22:26 +0200, "Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote: d04ga1duifhid5cnoqf3dp98kf7mplmbdk@xxxxxxx,
>
>> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 07:30:25 GMT, Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>
>>> [..]
>>>>
>>>> That is a conclusion based on the assumption that the KRS was carved
>>>> where it was found. As Reiersgord has pointed out, it is quite
>>>> possible that it was carved somewhere else.
>>>
>>> ...and the evidence for that is..... what?
>>
>> Read http://tinyurl.com/br9qr to find out.
>>>
>>> As I recall the rock itself has been declared to be "local" (meaning
>>> of that area) - IF it was carved at another place, it requires
>>> obtaining the stone from around the area it was found in - transport
>>> it to (wherever) carve it and bring it back again. Don't you think
>>> that sounds totally implausible?
>>
>> In the context of glacial erratics, 'local' covers a considerable
>> range. You just need to see the glacial erratics north of Coober Pedy
>> to understand that.
>
>We are talking local in the context of the KRS, not geological local.
>And glacial local covers NA north of c. 40º nl.

If the definition of 'local' is important, would it not be better to
describe what is mean by giving a distance?

Do you mean within 20km, 200km, 2000km or what?



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages