Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: "m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx" <m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Dec 2005 04:41:56 -0800
Steve Marcus wrote:
> And the other logical quirk is this: the "secret" dots yield the date 1362.
> But that date is already carved on the stone. So what was the big secret
> conveyed by the dots??
The practice of double dating an inscription does appear to have been a
practice in medieval time, as shown in Nielsen/Wolter (see my post on
the Easter Table). If so then this would tend to confirm the KRS as a
medieval document, a forger having no need to do so.
Michael
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Steve Marcus
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- References:
- Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: David B
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: David B
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Daryl Krupa
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Steve Marcus
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Eric Stevens
- Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- From: Steve Marcus
- Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- Prev by Date: KRS: Nielsen/Wolter - Goter
- Next by Date: Re: KRS book: Geology
- Previous by thread: Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- Next by thread: Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|