Re: KRS: Final thoughts
- From: Seppo Renfors <Renfors@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:04:52 GMT
Erik Hammerstad wrote:
>
> m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> In general a reasonably fair and complete story. A number of minor
> points could have been raised against parts of it, but to avoid
> being too repetitive I'll restrict myself.
>
> I find it remarkable that the Larsson papers are not even
> mentioned by Michael,
I find it remarkable that anyone even bothers to mention the Larsson
papers in relation to the KRS. They can have NO bearing on the
authenticity (or otherwise) of the stone at all. In fact they have no
bearing on the KRS in any way at all.
> as they do show that all the KRS runes were
> known at least among some Swedes in the late 18th century, and
> that in no other place do we find the whole set of the KRS runes,
> of which approximately half are not common or even known to have
> been used in medieval times. And the KRS is certainly _very_
> different in style compared to the texts found on medieval runestones.
Completely irrelevant for the issue of authenticity.
> There is nothing except speculation linking any particular
> Norwegian, whether he is called Knutson or Bardarson, with the
> Inventio Fortunatae. Bardarson probably went to Greenland and
> back, Knutson may have, while many other Norwegians must have done
> so in the 14th century. The Inventio Fortunatae may have been
> based on a factual trip, but if so we do not know to where, and
> certainly what it was described to contain are pure myths.
All that is interesting, but has no effect on the the issue Michael
dealt with. Again totally irrelevant to the question of authenticity
of the KRS.
It's worth pointing out that Michael is one of the very few people who
have restricted his article to the only evidence relevant to the
authenticity - and has avoided becoming bogged down in irrelevancies
like all of the above (and below) by Erik H.
> It is quite clear that geological testing will never give
> definitive _proof_ that the KRS is an authentic Norse medieval
> runestone nor will linguistics ever prove that it is a 19th
> century creation, believing otherwise is wishful thinking.
It is quite obvious that "geological testing" cannot give an accurate
date for when it was carved as Erik seems to want - eg on Tuesday
afternoon, July the 27th, 1362 - but then it doesn't need to. The
information able to be gleamed from "geological testing" (as per
Wolter and earlier inspections) is sufficient to tip the evidence 100%
in favour of it being genuine. Michael is far too modest in his
claims.
--
Criminal Tony Smith the stalker need not respond
http://tinyurl.com/al225
http://tinyurl.com/alznw
.
- References:
- KRS: Final thoughts
- From: m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: KRS: Final thoughts
- From: Erik Hammerstad
- KRS: Final thoughts
- Prev by Date: Re: KRS: Final thoughts
- Next by Date: Re: Roseau runestone Minnesota
- Previous by thread: Re: "ahr" Re: KRS: Final thoughts
- Next by thread: Re: Final thoughts
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
