Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 05:45:58 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:d09pa1dn498gorkvhrif4q7er1b5kn0e2h@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 08:29:05 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--- snip ---
>>>
>>>So let's try again. My post was premised this way: From what can be
>>>gleaned from the various translations of the KRS, the members of party of
>>>Norse in Kensington were in hostile territory ...
>>
>> That's your assumption (1)
>
>*My assumption*?? That's the assumption clearly conveyed by the text of the
>KRS, by what little history between the Norse and the "skraelings" of North
>America has come down to us, and by the actual circumstance of their
>allegedly being inland in 14th century North America.

Thats an assumption you have reached from your interpretation of the
text. As Reiersgord has demonstrated, it is open to alternative
interprations.
>
>>
>>> far from their "ship(s)" in
>>>the "inland sea", had just discovered that a number of their comrades had
>>>been murdered, ...
>>
>> Nope. They were dead. That they were murdered is your assumption (2).
>
>*My assumption*?? "We went fishing one day. After we came home, I found 10
>men red with blood and death/dead. Ave Maria Deliver us from evils!"
>That's Nielsen's 2001 translation. Let's not pretend that you can read this
>as disease related; what disease do you know of that acts that quickly? Did
>the Norse not have a word for "disease"? Why would those who went fishing
>not have symptoms; indeed, if due to disease, why weren't they dead too?

So, you have two choices and you have clearly rejected one. That is
your choice. The message is open to alternative interpretations has
been several times demonstrated in the news group and also by
Reiersgord. For the purpose of discusison you have assumed the
interpretation of violent death.

FYI, I've recently encountered information about the onset of the
Black Death which - just - suggests a strain of one of the three forms
may have come out of NA. I don't accept that as yet but its
sufficiently interesting to be worth following up.
>
>>
>>> ... and seemingly were in fear of their own lives. They needed
>>>to escape.
>>
>> That's your assumption (3)
>
>*My assumption*?? That's the assumption of everyone who has discussed the
>KRS text in every discussion of the KRS text that has ever been brought to
>the attention of this newsgroup. You, who purport to have special knowledge
>and to be a "maven" re the KRS, and Mike Zalar, who _is_ a "maven" re the
>KRS, have never, ever stated otherwise. Until you needed to do so now to
>escape the logic swamp you managed to tangle yourself in.

You only need to escape if you have been attacked. That they were
attacked is merely an assumption.
>
>>
>>>And you have suggested that instead of just hauling their
>>>respective tushies back towards this "inland sea" at the highest rate of
>>>speed they could obtain or trying to build themselves some sort of
>>>impregnable fortress like position so that they could survive until help
>>>arrived, they instead engaged in a round of felling trees, reducing the
>>>trees to planks and timbers, and building a boat (just one?;
>>
>> I didn't suggest they escaped by boat. That was someone else's idea.
>> All I did was pointed out that it was possiblethat they built a boat
>> and that such a thing things has been done by others in the past.
>
>Indeed! Well, it seems to me from the attributions above that you wrote
>this: "I don't know about the norse but there are a number of examples
>around my part of the world ranging from sealers building small ships in
>case their mother ship came back to pick them up, ship wrecked dailors
>building both small craft and ships of 50'. An old man I knew, when he was
>young at the end of the 19th century, built a small boat every two weeks
>with his brother. These were 12' to 20' long and were used for fishing and
>general transport around the sounds on the South Island of New Zealand."?
>It clearly introduces the idea of escape by reason of the discussion of ship
>wrecked sailors.

Quite right. If you read that in context you will find it was me
explaining that it was possible they might have actually built a boat.
>
>>
>>> would it have
>>>been large enough to transport all of them while being small enough to
>>>navigate the available water system?). (Let me add that these Norse also
>>>seemed to have found the time to locate a suitable stone and inscribe
>>>their
>>>tale, but, naturally, they left off the tidbit about building a boat or
>>>two...)
>>
>> We can solve that problem by assuming they carved the stone before
>> they decided to build a boat. But no, they wouldn't build a boat with
>> blunt chisels. Maybe they didn't have room on the stone to mention the
>> boat?
>>>
>>>My conclusion was that asserting that they built one or more boats was
>>>wildly illogical.
>>
>> Who is asserting?
>
>You were. Look up the definition of the word "asserting."

Please quote my assertion.
>
>>>
>>>Now please explain how the story you linked regarding of a party of men
>>>left
>>>behind for almost a year (without any mention of murder, hostile natives,
>>>etc.), obviously with the equipment necessary to build houses and a 60 to
>>>70
>>>ton ship, has anything at all to do with my post, or, with the apparent
>>>facts implicated by the text of the KRS that would have led up to your
>>>speculation that the KRS party built boats to escape. (If you don't
>>>understand that it's the escape part of the saga that's in question,
>>>re-read
>>>the post paying careful attention to the attributions.)
>>
>> I thought it was the ability to build a boat that was in question.
>> Never mind. Every time I answer one of your questions, you cahange the
>> question. [With apologies to '1066 and all that'.]
>
>Who cares about the ability to build a boat in the context of this
>discussion, unless that ability is being tied in to the issue of the actions
>of the authors of the KRS?

I do believe you are slowly beginning to understand what this
discussion is all about!



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... KRS, by what little history between the Norse and the "skraelings" of North ... escape the logic swamp you managed to tangle yourself in. ... > I didn't suggest they escaped by boat. ... case their mother ship came back to pick them up, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Whats So Important About KRS?
    ... >>'deny such Norse could have made the journey.' ... and want to consider the evidence) and ... (and you've taken some silly/illogical ones, such as the KRS being a message ... Yet you allegedly remain firmly on the fence regarding authenticity. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >>>I don't know about the norse but there are a number of examples around ... >>>building both small craft and ships of 50'. ... >> fire and water a few men can have a boat within a week or two. ... But what problem can you see using fresh wood, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
    ... >> I think that from talking about the norse getting as far ... >> Bergen to Shetland - 200 miles ... They had a boat which was smeared with sea oil, ... Then said Biarne: "As the boat ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >>KRS text in every discussion of the KRS text that has ever been brought to ... >>> I didn't suggest they escaped by boat. ... >>case their mother ship came back to pick them up, ... >>> I thought it was the ability to build a boat that was in question. ...
    (sci.archaeology)