Re: KRS and the 1890's
- From: "m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx" <m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Dec 2005 06:42:55 -0800
Peo wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that there
> are more than one article in any of these newpapers
> http://www.augustana.edu/swenson/Newspapers/NewspaperGuideQry_1.html
> that could have supplied the appropriate futhark-font, and inspired someone
> to create a fake rune stone....
>
> Peo
Yes, in fact Ohman had a series of articles cipped from a newspaper
which was a history of Sweden, and which contained a futhark. But it
was not the runes that were used on the KRS. If a person had wanted to
make a forgery, there was certainly enough information availible to
about anyone make a credible runestone, using the proper runes. But
this was not done.
To me it simply does not make sense for a forger, who must have spent a
considerable amount of time working on the stone, to not have used the
easily availible information to make a stone that was not so obviously
'wrong' to so many of the early critics. A subjective observation
admittadly, but one that weighs heavy on my mind.
The arguments which are more objective from the standpoint of many of
these 'wrong' runes to have been shown correct for the 14th century
have been mentioned elsewhere, so I will not repeat them here
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: KRS and the 1890's
- From: Erik Hammerstad
- Re: KRS and the 1890's
- References:
- KRS and the 1890's
- From: Peo
- KRS and the 1890's
- Prev by Date: New book on Vinland
- Next by Date: Re: KRS and the 1890's
- Previous by thread: Re: KRS and the 1890's
- Next by thread: Re: KRS and the 1890's
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
