Re: KRS and the 1890's
- From: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:20:08 +1300
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:00:54 +0100, Erik Hammerstad
<egeha.is.all.you.need@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> 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
>>
>So spoke an amateur relying on the views of other amateurs. AFAIK
>there is no professional linguist or runologist who will agree
>with your last sentence. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I can inform you that you will stand corrected. I'm sorry, I can't be
more specific than that.
>
>The very special KSR runes have only been found in a late 19th
>century context from the Dalarne area of Sweden, one in a document
>dated some 15 years before the find of the KRS and another on a
>wooden yoke dated some ten years after. First use of the pentadic
>KRS numbers date to the late 18th century.
>
>According to the linguist prof. em. Tryggve Sköld the language on
>the KRS is fairly consistent with the original author being a
>Norwegian but with the text modified to fit the runes originating
>in the late 19th century Dalarne and hence carved by a Swede. See
>http://www2.sofi.se/daum/katta/katta15/katta15.pdf This of course
>removes Ohman from the list of possible suspects, except as the
>finder of the KRS putting up his name as a possible perpetrator is
>a red herring.
>
>IMHO the only remaining doubt with regard to assuming the KRS to
>be a late 19th century artifact is the weathering issue. But only
>if and when Wolter is able to obtain professional backing for his
>claims in this regard, for example through publishing them in a
>relevant peer-reviewed journal, could one expect any renewed
>professional and scientific interest in the KRS. Amateur interest
>will of course probably still continue, regardless.
Eric Stevens
.
- 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
- Re: KRS and the 1890's
- From: m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: KRS and the 1890's
- From: Erik Hammerstad
- KRS and the 1890's
- Prev by Date: Re: KRS book: Geology
- Next by Date: Re: Origin of the Etruscan people?
- Previous by thread: Re: KRS and the 1890's
- Next by thread: Re: KRS and the 1890's
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|