Re: What's So Important About KRS?
- From: Philip Deitiker <Nopdeitik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Jun 2005 17:48:35 GMT
In sci.archaeology, Andy68 created a message ID
news:1120150874.914469.51160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
ROFL.
> So, I've been lurking around here for a while because I
think
> archaeology is an interesting subject.
And so why exactly are you lurking here?
> I couldn't help but notice that there seems to be a small
> amount of disagreement about a carved stone found in
> America.
Small? Is the battle of gettysburg considered small to you
also.
> Looking through the threads, I find that this
> disagreement has been going on for a long, long time.
sci.archeaology was created, the next day the battle began.
> I am wondering what the importance is to people arguing both
> sides?
I can explain this.
Micheal Zalar is a proponent of the KRS's authenticity, he is
from minnesota, he has investigated the 19th and 20th century
claims and feels that the stone is older than 1860s. Since
there were no rune makers in Minnesota <1860 that are
historically documented, his assumption is that the date on
the stone is authentic to the date it was made (although
nothing else seems to be authentic to the date, and the
context of the writings is not authentic to the place).
Micheal has never addressed the question of whether the stone
might have been moved after it was carved and potentially
weathered.
What is the line between the two camps. Very simple. The
proponents of the KRS carefully pick and choose, take partial
sentences, focus on one statment and ignore other statements
and through a hodge-podge of card stacked arguments they weigh
in favor of authenticity. The two most coherent proponents of
this camp are Micheal Zalar and Steve Whittet. Further away
from the line are Several other proponents who grab cow dung
from any feild they find and hurl it into the argument.
Sitting on the line are people like myself, who, if the
proponents could scrape off all of the propogandized weak
premises and come together with some sort of 'hard' study,
might convince a person or two who have some acedemic
perspective. I suppose Jerry is also in this camp, waiting to
see if something more meaningful will come.
Directly on the other side of that line is Doug Weller who
asks the question of careful weigh of facts in context etc.
Doug has been playing the devil's advocate for some time with
the various 'premises' that the proponents lay out. There are
also people who are linguist, historians, archaeologist who
have real problems with certain aspects of the KRS.
Behind them are people who lob cowdung at the people on the
other side who are lobbing cowdung. Mostly this group is tired
of the BS that some proponents hurl out without fore thought,
reflection or thorough study.
> Maybe some people who have been posting could reply to
> this with a note about why they think this issue is
> important, how they are personally invested in it, etc.
> I'd like a little "background" in order to read the
> threads.
The KRS could be important in understanding the fate of the
western greenlander. During the mid to late 14th century the
weather in the greenlandic colonies began to deteriorate. Ivar
Bardsson was supposed to have visited between 1345 and 1360
and the claim is that he found the colony abandoned. It
appears potentially that the western greenlanders might have
moved on. The timing of the KRS is approximate to the time
when climactic pressure would have, in a decadal manner,
pushed the fauna of the arctic to the south, and those that
might have preyed on such fauna would have been forced to move
south or adapt a more opportunistic lifestyle. There is no
evidence that the Norse moved. However if I see that there is
a place where the KRS was likely carved, and also these
'problems' in authenticity are resolved, it might be
reasonable to assume that a small collection of Norse might
have moved inland south of hudson bay. The KRS, if authentic,
may be some evidence. There is a runestone on another island
dated to 1333 and supports that they wrote runes, and that
they had some familiarity with the high eastern arctic of
canada. Potentially they traveled hudson bay. As the weather
turned these Norse might have been compelled to travel further
south into southern canada, looking for safe haven.
The KRS['s authenticity] is important to certain
ethnocentric Swedes and White-power groups who make claims
that all kinds of new world creations are the result of
scandinavian cultural contribution. The KRS is important to
those who wish not to believe that while the inuit on
greenland managed to survive the little ice age, that the
greenlandic Norse perished or fell to other fates (Piracy,
kidnapped, murdered). It is also important to those who have
ethnic myths which they would like to support with some sort
of data.
Hope this clarifies the argument.
.
- References:
- What's So Important About KRS?
- From: Andy68
- What's So Important About KRS?
- Prev by Date: Re: Inventio Fortunata [Was: KRS: Final thoughts]
- Next by Date: Re: Inventio Fortunata [Was: KRS: Final thoughts]
- Previous by thread: Re: What's So Important About KRS?
- Next by thread: Re: What's So Important About KRS?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
