Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: "David B" <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:09:51 GMT
Eric Stevens wrote in message ...
>
>1. Wolters has photographed the runes in unprecedented detail and in
> the process has shown that the common understanding of the nature
> of some of the runes is wrong. Some of the runes are almost
> unprecedented.
Has Wolter established that the newly-discovered aspects of the runes are
contemporary with the making of the runes as previously understood?
>8. Wolters touches on the examination of the weathering of tombstones
> but other than stating the broad results he goes into no great
> detail.
That alone makes the book not worth buying for me. Until I see convincing
evidence that the aging of the runes could not be partly artificial, I'd
have to say that all the rest of the, no doubt fascinating, arguments are
only as relevant to real medieval history as The Da Vinci Code.
David B.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- References:
- Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Eric Stevens
- Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- Prev by Date: Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- Next by Date: A joke being called a "charter"
- Previous by thread: Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- Next by thread: Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|