Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9sabr15n4gb2cram7glrop6rr255cknjj3@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 06:54:41 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:et2ar1hau6oobv8bh9jsh5tqqsfu07f1ke@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:02:10 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Because it is damned difficult to reconcile its being genuine with any
>>>>>>sort
>>>>>>of logic, let alone with the historical record.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. Its a forged ... what?
>>>>
>>>>Runestone. Or, if you prefer, artifact.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> How do you tell a forged runestone from a genuine runestone? For the
>>> purpose of this question all that is required to establosh that an
>>> artifact is made of stone and has runes carved on it.
>>
>>Historically, runestones tend to favor certain formats. I'll forego
>>specifics, since you already know what I mean.
>
> On that basis, Finnegan's Wake is not an english language book.

That's a heck of poor analogy. Certainly, it is clear that Finnegan's Wake
is an English language book, not withstanding its format. It is not,
however, clear that the KRS is actually a 14th century runestone left in
Minnesotat by Norse visitors circa 1362.

Although I smell the squink generator warming up to go full bore, I will
nevertheless ask you whether it is or is not true that the vast majority of
runestones describing things done by people have certain formats? Does the
KRS display such a format? Would the failure of the KRS to conform to such
format be evidence bearing on its authenticity (note the difference between
"evidence" and "conclusive evidence")?

>>
>>Most often, an artifact's authenticity (from tools to bones to runestones)
>>is established by its provenence. Provenence is one of the most important
>>things lacking with respect to the KRS.
>
> So, if I find a $10 bill on the street and don't know ehere it has
> come from (i.e. it lacks provenance) I should presume its a forgery?

Again, the squink generator cranks out an absurd analogy.

The answer to your question is no, because the vast majority of US $10
bills that a typical individual will ever encounter in their lifetimes will
not be forged. Therefore, rational people behave as though a US $10 bill in
their possession is authentic; it's the default position unless the person
has clear reason to assume other than the default position (as, for example,
the ink on the purported US $10 bill is red, not green).

However, given what is known of history, the finding in Minnesota of an
authentic 14th century runestone which purports to record a visit by
Norsemen to the stone's location, is an extremely atypical event.
Therefore, the rational position, absent a clear provenance for the
runestone from which it is demonstrated that the runestone could not be a
fake, is that the runestone is of questionable authenticity, at best.

>>
>>>
>>>>Please note that saying "damned
>>>>difficult to reconcile its being genuine with any sort of logic, let
>>>>alone
>>>>with the historical record", is *not* saying that I find the KRS to
>>>>definitely be a fake.
>>>
>>> But a fake what?
>>
>>Of a runestone created in the 14th century.
>
> I take it that you think it may be a runestone created in some other
> century.

I love it when you squirm around and are reduced to playing word games.
Yes, if the runestone facially purports to be a 14th century runestone and
it is, in fact, not a 14th century runestone, then it would have been
created in some other century.

>>
>>>
>>>> I'm merely answering your inquiry; I do think that
>>>>the evidence (exclusive of Wolter/Nielsen's book which I have not yet
>>>>read)
>>>>clearly does not establish that the KRS is an authentic runestone (or if
>>>>you
>>>>prefer, artifact). Nothing you've reported from their book encourages
>>>>me
>>>>to
>>>>change my thinking in that regard.
>>>
>>> Certainly it is an artifact. Your desk is an artifact. So is my
>>> calculator - and so on.
>>
>>Squinking so soon into the discussion?? You must already be desperate.
>>How
>>about "authentic artifact" in the sense of actually being what it purports
>>to be, namely a 14th century runestone>
>
> Not squinking at all. You are trying to claim that it is a fake
> (runestone) artifact.

Where have I claimed that the KRS is a fake?? I have merely pointed out
some issues that are raised by *your* report of what is stated in the
Wolter/Nielsen book. So far, your response to what I've pointed out is that
you didn't read the book closely enough to respond to those points.

> I'm trying to get you to the point where you can
> say what kind of artifact it is a fake of. To do that I had to make
> clear that it is an artifact in its own right so that it cannot be a
> fake artifact. It is an artifact.

As I said, the squink generator is in full swing, isn't it?

>From Merriam-Webster on line, at http://m-w.com/dictionary/artifact

Main Entry: ar·ti·fact
Pronunciation: 'är-ti-"fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin arte by skill (ablative of art-, ars skill) + factum,
neuter of factus, past participle of facere to do -- more at ARM, DO

1 a : something created by humans usually for a practical purpose;
*especially* : an object remaining from a particular period <caves
containing prehistoric artifacts> (Emphasis in the original.)

See also" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=artifact

ar·ti·fact also ar·te·fact

1. An object produced or shaped by human craft, especially a tool, weapon,
or ornament of archaeological or historical interest.

Since we are on a Usenet group called sci.archaeology, I would have credited
you with understanding that the word artifact, when used in a discussion in
this newsgroup, is the relevant most common definition given as "especially:
an object remaining from a particular period." or an object produced or
shaped by human craft ... of archaeological or historical interest."

> Now you've got to the nitty gritty by writing "being what it purports
> to be, namely a 14th century runestone". Now, what makes you so sure
> that it purports to be a 14th century runestone other than that it
> includes the date 1362 in the text?

What makes you so sure that a US $10 bill is what it purports to be, namely
a note that is worth $10 US rather than $20 US or $5 dollars US?? Rational
people will take, as a default position, that a bill purporting to be worth
$10 US will fetch $10 US.

Per Dr. Nielsen circa 2001, the KRS tells a story of 30 Norse who "(are) on"
an acquisition expedition/business, who had a camp within a day's journey
from the location of "this stone", and who went fishing one day. The story
then continues by stating that the leader (or author or stonecutter) that "I
have" (note the present tense) a ship or ships 14 days travel away from this
"wealth/property." The stone concludes with the following: "Year of our
Lord. 1362"

Facially, the KRS clearly states that the leader/author/stonecutter "has",
present tense, a ship or ships at a particular location and then states the
date as 1362. Thus, the KRS clearly purports to be a runestone on which the
text was carved in 1362. Rational people will take, as a default position,
that the KRS was carved in 1362 because the story on it is told in the
present text (we arrived, we did some stuff, I currently have ships a given
distance from the current location, and the date is 1362).

>
> Please recall that I have already said somewhere that all conventional
> interpretations of the KRS must now be in doubt.

Yes, and that's the problem. In 2001, Dr. Nielsen was absolutely certain of
a translation that contained some new elements to it. He supported his
argument that there was 14th century precedent for essentially all of the
rune forms on the stone. Now, you are describing a book in which the
message on the stone changes, there's a coded date (although that date is
1362, just like the date that's "in the clear"). You have not, however,
provided enough detail to preclude people from taking a somewhat skeptical
attitude. Neither have you provided enough detail to establish that the KRS
in fact is not what what "all conventional interpretations" of it.

In short, you've initiated a discussion of the Wolter/Nielsen book without
providing sufficient detail to support what they claim, and have confessed
to having read the book without getting into sufficient depth to discuss
some of the rather obvious cavets to what they claim. I could as easily
take all of the numbers on the KRS and conclude that they represent
coordinates that direct one to a star other than our own, and presume that
the "authors" of the KRS were in fact extraterristrials. It costs nothing
to do so, does it?

The lesson learned is that you ought to be prepared to fully discuss
evidence before posting about such evidence and conclusions derived
therefrom, rather than cheerleading as you've done in this case. Do not
denigrate, or play word games with, people who wish to discuss that what you
have posted. It isn't their fault that you aren't prepared to rationally
discuss the matter.
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>

Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... Finnegan's Wake is not an english language book. ... > that lack of names rules out the KRS is not a genuine runestone than ... But I haven't argued that the lack of names rules out the KRS as a genuine ... considered on balance with all of the evidence. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... >>>is an English language book, ... >> that lack of names rules out the KRS is not a genuine runestone than ... >But I haven't argued that the lack of names rules out the KRS as a genuine ... >considered on balance with all of the evidence. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... >>> Finnegans Wake breaks many rules of english grammar, ... >>> that lack of names rules out the KRS is not a genuine runestone than ... >>But I haven't argued that the lack of names rules out the KRS as a genuine ... I've argued that the lack of names is a quantum of evidence ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... that lack of names rules out the KRS is not a genuine runestone than ... >fake, is that the runestone is of questionable authenticity, at best. ... >> say what kind of artifact it is a fake of. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: KRS: Final thoughts
    ... > arguments against authenticity. ... > KRS, which gave a strong pro-authenticity argument, but was seeking the ... > can claim to be an expert on the runestone. ... > believe it is highly likely that the Kensington Runestone is authentic. ...
    (sci.archaeology)