Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:34:52 GMT, in sci.archaeology,
nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>Apparently on date Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:49:24 -0400, Horace LaBadie
><hwlabadiejr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
>>In article <rcmuf1hg73j6tva59todtur4t47ok0r9f2@xxxxxxx>,
>> nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>> Well it's mentioned in here - "Le Nord: paysage imaginaire"
>>> http://www.collectionscanada.ca/nord/h16-4223-f.html
>>
>>How does this put Norsemen in Minnesota, which is nowhere near Ellesmere
>>Island? Your claim: "pretty convincing archaeological evidence exists
>>for the Norse to have gotten as far west as Minnesota." There is no
>>evidence to support that claim, only evidence that the Norse could
>>travel long distances in other directions.
>
>Ellesmere island is as far west as Minnesota, as per my original statement, up
>to 92 W as compared to 89 W onwards.
>

I don't want to be difficult, but 'as far west as Minnesota' would
normally mean Minnesota, unless it was made clear that it didn't. You
wouldn't say you'd traveled as far west as Minnesota if you meant you 'd
been to Ellesmere Island.

Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk


.

Relevant Pages
Loading