Re: Geology Question (KRS related)

"Hayabusa" <peregrine@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:6351u15pu6401u34nv348ba42us3f7i6jo@xxxxxxxxxx
> 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!

Thanks.  I'm just about there.
>
>
>>>  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.

Interesting.  The authors state that at least some of the Maine tombstones 
(although they don't positively state it for the three samples they used in 
their dating of the KRS)  had lichens on them and that acid produced by 
these lichens would
"accelerate the weathering rate of biotite mica."

The KRS was discovered buried in soil that one might safely predicate was a 
bit "swampy" or "boggy"; that condition was used to support consideration of 
Runestone Hill as fitting the term "island" which appears on the KRS.  Do I 
conclude from your post that burying a stone in swampy or boggy conditions 
would not accelerate the weathering of biotite so as to impart a "200 year 
old appearance" to, let's say, a 100 year old inscription that had been 
buried for 50 years?

>>>  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

Thanks for you kind thought, and for your time.

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: Iron Pyrite...
    ... The chances of someone in 1898 knowing the acid and non acid components of ... What we do know is that KRS have been out under 'normal' weathering ... Then we know that the stone was found in 1898. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
    ... > runes of the KRS. ... >> the surface of the KRS that bears the larger part of the inscription, ... > entire length of the stone. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Update on the Kensington Runestone
    ... > " For comparison, Wolter sampled inscribed tombstones in Hallowell, ... that were subject to similar weathering conditions as the ... > stone also showed no signs of mica, ... > that Ohman did not carve the inscription; ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... The notion that the inscription on the KRS can be said to be ... based upon an certain interpretation of its weathering characteristics ... >> To that I must respond that if you want ask me to show that the KRS ... so I'm at a loss as to speculate on how to produce it. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Kensington Runestone - Nielsen and Wolters.
    ... >> Even if the history of the KRS inscription were known re: ... >> amount of time exposed to the air and amount of time face ... we don't know what weathering coefficients ... > face) that the stone could have been broken off from its parent the day ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Loading