Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:19:31 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>2) The authors seem to be just throwing a whole bunch of stuff up there on
>the wall, hoping that some of it sticks. Nielsen is particularly adept at
>this. Beginning at page 49, the book begins to discuss the language and
>runes of the KRS (and so I assume this is Nielsen's work). He throws a
>whole bunch old runes from Gotsland, rune variants, dots, inverted U runes,
>etc., at the reader. Evidently, he wants us to be impressed by volume, lose
>concentration on details, and conclude that all of the presented information
>makes a case for the authenticity of the KRS. However, there are many
>instances when close reading of the information presented undercuts the case
>for authenticity he's trying to make. I will detail that later, when I'm
>not sitting home recovering from surgery and have a chance to review the
>notes I'm taking while not under the influence of pain killers.
Get well!
>> And, of course, Wolter's Maine-tombstone-to-KRS comparison
>> depends upon a fundamental assumption, that
>> the KRS has not experienced any factors which might
>> "accelerate the weathering rate of biotite mica".
>> In suggesting that weathering rate of the Maine tombstone biotite
>> might have been accelerated, Wolter is treating the KRS
>> as if it were the control sample in the comparison
>> (which is not the way to do the comparison),
I think that' a fair assumption. Biotite doesn't weather easily. -
Take into account that I know little about weathering, but I am a
hardrocker. I have seen biotite bleached by acidic soils - swamps and
bogs; these conditions are usually much stronger than any rain can
provide, and the bleaching was caused over 10.000 years or so. If you
leave biotite in a jar of humous acid for 100 years I would be
surprised if you get any observable effect.
>> I didn't want to bring this into my critical treatment re: geology,
>> but
>> does Wolter indicate that
>> the surface of the KRS that bears the larger part of the inscription,
>> aka the "front face",
>> is a "man-made surface"?
>> I had thought, from the list of named surfaces of the KRS
>> that Alan had quoted, that there was only one "man-made surface"
>> bearing an inscription, i.e.
>> the one bearing the lesser part of the inscription,
>> aka the "split side".
>> It seemed to me that if Wolter has denoted the "front face" as
>> being "glacial", then that would preclude the "front face" from
>> being a "man-made surface".
>> Does Wolter explain which are these inscription-bearing
>> "man-made surfaces"?
>
>Pages 13-14: "1. Glacial Face Side - The relatively flat side that
>contains the first nine lines of the inscription (see figure 1).
>
>2. Glacial Topo End - Roughly perpendicular to the glacial face side, if the
>stone were set upright this side would be at the top (see color section,
>plate 4).
>
>3. Glacial Side - This side rounds quickly to near vertical and runs the
>entire length of the stone (see figure 2). If you stod facing the upright
>stone, the glacial side would correlate to the right side.
>
>4, Glacial Back Side - Somewhat rough and irregular, it is on the opposite
>side of the stone from the inscription (see figures 11 & 12).
>
>5. Glacial Bottom End - This end tapers sharply, and was apparently
>intended to be set in the ground (see figure 13).
>
>6. Split Side - Relatively flat with an irregular surface, the split side
>contains the last three of the total of twelve lines of the inscription (see
>figure 18)."
>
>On page 15, the authors state that the face side does not exhibit glacial
>striations. On page 18, the authors state that the glacial back side
>exhibits relatively deep glacial striations (1 to 5 mm deep) that run
>parallel to the stone's axis, indicating that the striations were made when
>the stone was still part of the bedrock. I'll quote this sentence verbatim
>(grammatical warts and all): "No other sides of the Kensington Rune Stone
>that exhibit glacial striations, which indicates that they were made when
>the stone was still part of the bedrock."
The characteristic sign is probably not that the striations are
parallel to the extension of the stone, but that they are parallel to
one another. A stone that was transported in a glacier will be
continuously reoriented and be scratched in all sorts of directions,
and on all faces.
>>> >> while the biotite on the tombstones
>>> >> (average age 194 + or - 5 years)
>>>
>>> > Hmmm? I had thought that that was
>>> > about the age of the oldest tombstone sampled.
>>>
>>> "The average age of weathering of the three samples was
>>> 194 years, plus or minus 5 years."
>>> The three sample tombstones had "death dates" of 1806, 1805
>>> and 1815, yielding 197 years, 198 years, and 188 years of
>>> weathering in 2003.
Again, such precise numbers cause red alert for me. At least I'd like
to see the original study.
fkoe
.
Relevant Pages
- Re: Hooked X Runes and where they have been found.
... if the Larsson runes trace their roots to some ... Narragansett inscription stone, or the astrolab or Rosslyn chapel. ...
(sci.archaeology) - Re: KRS - Possible news to come
... >> dressed, i.e., chiselled flat before the inscription was done. ... >split, say, by installing the stone in a burning pile and then dousing ... >> of soil. ... >> any tree in the age between the stone being made, ...
(sci.archaeology) - Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
... > "Wherever the characters of the inscription have not ... > of the letters have been scratched over with a sharp ... > instrument after the stone was unearthed. ... > was said to be due to the fact that the runes on the ...
(sci.archaeology) - Re: Hooked X Runes and where they have been found.
... It was found on the Spirit Pond Runestone. ... were known before the Kensington stone was unearthed, one cannot rule out the possibility that they were carved by people who had seen pictures of the Kensington text. ... were first found and used as evidence that they were fakes. ... inscription and in others discovered in North America (Spirit Pond, ...
(sci.archaeology) - Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
... cutting a stone in that shape ... It's about Larsson's runes being late ... >The inscription, dated in 1362, is quite a disturbing one -- in fact it's ... >coincidences associated with the Stone's message. ...
(sci.archaeology) |
|
