Re: Gotland crosses
- From: Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:56:55 -0500
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:19:56 -0500, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- snip ---
While I don't know what to think about Wolter's reported views on the minimum length of time the inscription was exposed, it's clear that Wolter and Reiersgord/Winchell can't both be correct.
I would back Wolters on the geological side. He (and others) have looked at the KRS with instruments that Winchell could not even have dreaed of.
As between the two of them, I agree with you. I do wonder whether Winchell was right about the deterioration of calcite exposed to weathering, though.
-- Tom McDonald http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/ .
- References:
- Re: Gotland crosses
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Gotland crosses
- From: Philip Deitiker
- Re: Gotland crosses
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Gotland crosses
- From: Philip Deitiker
- Re: Gotland crosses
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Gotland crosses
- From: Alaca
- Re: Gotland crosses
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Gotland crosses
- From: Alaca
- Re: Gotland crosses
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Gotland crosses
- From: Tom McDonald
- Re: Gotland crosses
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Gotland crosses
- Prev by Date: Re: Reiersgord's _The Kensington Rune Stone--Its Place In History_
- Next by Date: Re: Reiersgord's _The Kensington Rune Stone--Its Place In History_
- Previous by thread: Re: Gotland crosses
- Next by thread: Re: Gotland crosses
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|