Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press

Apparently on date Thu, 9 Jun 2005 23:43:55 +0200, "Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxxxx>
said:

>nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Eric Stevens said:
>>> "Alaca" wrote:
>
>>>> clears Ohman and that's all.
>>>> Forget the tree and the rootmarks.
>>>> They are a complete waste of time.
>>> Clearing Ohman is important as for nearly a century opponents of the
>>> authenticity of the KRS have been arguing that Ohman forged it. Now
>> It doesn't clear Ohman, as we haven't established that the stone was
>> actually found under a particular tree which made marks which I'll
>> assume are there at all, etc, etc. I've no reason to think he was or
>> wasn't the forger, if it was forgery, as it is pathetically easy to
>
>I am prepared to accept the relation between the
>simultaneously appearance of the distorted roots and
>the stone. The consequence is that the age of the
>tree clears Ohman.

Well I don't see it is certain, but I don't see it is ruled out either. And I
can see how Ohman could extract the stone and tree with compatible marks and
then carve the runes on it. Operative word "could".

>BTW, Do you know David B's "The Third Way"?
>http://homepages.tesco.net/~trochos/

A perfectly reasonable tale that may have plenty of truth in it. Speculation
obviously.

I've not got a different tale to promote.

The point about not knowing when the Norse were in NA and possibly the forger
giving a later than actual date, is interesting. As is the other suggestion in
another thread that a 1662 date fits quite well with a Swede / Dutch "prior
claim" dispute.

There are lots and lots of plausible explanations.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Killing myth - Ohman - part 1
    ... >>> Ohman as a stone mason man forward. ... >>> Ohman, signed statement in Landesverk) ... >there were 4 large roots projecting from the tree. ... >not fall over on its own or be tip the root ball because of an axe. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Latest KRS information short note
    ... > authenticity of the runestone itself. ... > letters and other papers belonging to the Ohman family have been ... > One particular note was by, as I recall, the eldest son of Olof Ohman, ... Any indication from the drawing as to what type of species of tree? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >>> The favourite forger in the minds of most people was Olaf ... IMHO the issue of authenticity remains up in ... >> Just look at the controversy that has swirled around Ohman ... Who thinks Ohman carved the stone? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >>> If this rock exhibits surface features that would take a tree root ... >>> root markings. ... >>> tree grows larger. ... >>clears Ohman and that's all. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... as we haven't established that the stone was ... >>tree clears Ohman. ... >The point about not knowing when the Norse were in NA and possibly the forger ...
    (sci.archaeology)