Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:09:51 GMT, "David B" <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>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?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that but (probably) Nielsen has
established that the newly identified runes are consistent with the
usage of 14th century Gotland and only with 14th century Gotland.
>
>>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.

I'm not quite sure where, but Wolters somewhere states in his book
that artificial aging of the surface of the stone can be excluded. As
you know, I made enquiries of geo-technical experts about this some
years ago and reached the same conclusion. I know you (and others)
like the idea of artificial aging but until you can come up with a
mechanism which will withstand the close examination of an expert
armed with all the tools of modern science, I don't think the idea
will fly. Merely leaving it out in the weather or burying it in horse
*** is not enough. :-)



Eric Stevens

.