Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:02:30 GMT, "David B" <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>Eric Stevens wrote in message ...
>>
>>On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:09:51 GMT, "David B" <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>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.
>
>See below
>
>>>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>
>>>>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.
>
>But that's exactly why your point (8) makes the book such a letdown for me.
>If Wolter had presented a convincing explanation of _how_ his examination
>of the KRS ruled out artificial weathering to disguise freshly-exposed
>mica, I'd have been interested. This also brings me back to the dating of
>the "newly-discovered aspects of the runes" (by which I meant the
>additional marks which changed the interpretation of some runes). If those
>marks cannot _physically_ be proved to be of the same era as the previously
>known carving, then they must be treated with great suspicion.
>
He does explain enough of the process of weathering of the mica which
he was examining to give you an idea of the complexity of faking the
weathering. It's not just the question of loss of mica: the mica
exfoliates in the process of natural weathering and any accelerated
weathering process would have to produce similar exfoliation. There is
more. For example mica also leaves iron stains when it first weathers
and these iron stains also weather away. Your fake weathering would
have to not only weather the mica in a way indistinguishable from
natural weathering but it would have to weather away the iron stains
in a way indistinguishable from natural weathering.

It would be extraordinary if any would-be forger of the past knew (in
the past) enough about the weathering of the particular greywacke to
be able to fool a determined expert armed with the knowledge and
technology of the present. Without intending to be rude, you certainly
couldn't get away with it even now.



Eric Stevens

.