Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:26:40 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote: el0mq15plk10edff7jblnlth22nmh2j8vp@xxxxxxx,
>> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>>
>> --- snip ----
>>
>>>>> Neither do I, but the known dots are clearly visible,
>>>>> while for some strange reason the 'important' dots
>>>>> are in normal circumstances invisible.
>>>
>>>> Not invisible, in the sense that they can be hard to see.
>>>> All that is required is that somebody seriously study the stone.
>>>
>>> And who do have you in mind?
>>> Who do you think was supposed to see
>>> and read the stone?
>>> If I see e.g. route sign, is it necessary to
>>> study it seriously for signs of secret
>>> nummerological clues?
>>
>> You have to take into account that the fine detail has become
>> relatively obscured by the centuries of weathering to which it has
>> been exposed. In part the situation resembles that of the 17th century
>> english 's' which most people think was then represented by the long
>> version of the letter 'f'. I haven't got an example to show but if you
>> examine the old documents closely you will see that the horizontal bar
>> on the 'f' crosses the main stem of the letter but in the letter 's'
>> it is found only to the left of the main stem.
>
>(That is not an English speciality)
>
>> Yet, the vast majority of people have never noticed that.
>> People tend not to notice the fine detail unless they specifically
>> look for it.
>
>Yes, but where is the need to look for it?

Ordinarily one uses context to help decide the nature of a word. But
in a document whose meaning is obscure it is important to establish
whether a word is 'fit' or 'sit' (or where spelling is optional
'fense' or 'sense') etc. I am surprised that for over a hundred years
nobody examined in detail the text of the stone over which they were
arguing.
>
>> When I referred to somebody seriously studying the stone, I of course
>> referred to the scholars who have pronounced the runes to be fake and
>> the stone to be false on the basis of what now can be seen to be a
>> less than thorough examination. It is disappointing that it should
>> take more than a century for this to be done and that when it was done
>> it was done by a geologist of all people.
>>
>> I take your point about the route sign but in this case we appear to
>> have a secret message disguised as a route sign (or something). There
>> may be truth in the message that they were engaged in a voyage of
>> (land?) acquisition but the KRS appears to be intended to do much more
>> than record that fact. The question is, what was its real purpose?
>
>But a secret code only makes sense if you
>expect a passer-by with special knowledge,
>and the desire to look for codes on a straight
>forward looking carved stone

I agree. So the question is, what was the true purpose of the KRS? As
may people have pointed out, it does not make sense for someone to
spend two days banging away with a hammer and chisel to record the
fact that their party has just been attacked. Maybe that isn't why the
KRS was carved at all.

>>>> It is disappointing that it should take more than a century to
>>>> happen.
>
>>> If the krs is genuine, then it is much longer then a century.
>>
>> I was referring to the time since its discovery.
>
>I know, but my point is that it needs special
>techniques and numerological knowledeg
>to find the secret dots.

Apart from the fact that the dot's weren't secret, you have it the
wrong way round. It was the discovery of the dots (and dashes) which
led to the numerology as a possible explanation of their presence. I
imagine nobody was more surprised than Nielsen and Wolters when they
were found to fit.

>And I distrust the argument of erosion, because
>that means _selective_ erosion.

There is no suggestion of selective erosion. I'm not sure where you
get that idea from.

I would like to continue this discussion but I am shutting down in a
few minutes and am going to be away until the 26th.



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... people can't even agree on where the KRS was found! ... >greywacke chips appeared to be the same kind of stone as the KRS ... Eric Stevens ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... >Eric Stevens wrote: 90sgs1tk1ip3mamk8m13mmeij152tevdt0@xxxxxxx, ... >>> current weathering on the KRS would have required more than 200 ... It could have been done post Columbus by ... he is arguing that the stone was cut and inscribed at the same ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >>>The stone could have been placed aside the tree after it was ... >>>entangle the stone. ... >of the KRS could be settled. ... Eric Stevens ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... Eric Stevens wrote: ... >>These facts about the KRS I referred to earlier: ... The stone was under a tree that had germinated and grown over ... "Local" as in belonging to that area - as opposed to imported from ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
    ... >>runes of the KRS. ... >>> "accelerate the weathering rate of biotite mica". ... conclude from your post that burying a stone in swampy or boggy conditions ... >>> the surface of the KRS that bears the larger part of the inscription, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Quantcast