Re: Geology Question (KRS related)

• From: Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:55:00 +1300

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 17:37:33 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:

   --- snip ---

>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.  

Aren't you jumping to a conclusion here? The runestone was found on
the side of a hill of 'glacial till'. Somebody (Daryl?) has already
pointed out that the term 'glacial till' covers a wide range of
possible materials but I am not aware that anyone has suggested that
the particular site ever was swampy or boggy. As far as I know, the
description of swampy/boggy has been applied to the conditions at the
foot of the hill but not the hill itself.

>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?



Eric Stevens

.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
    • From: Steve Marcus

• References:
  • Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
    • From: Hayabusa
  • Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
    • From: Steve Marcus

• Prev by Date: Re: Daryl Krupa: Geology Question (KRS related)
• Next by Date: Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
• Previous by thread: Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
• Next by thread: Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

• Windows
• Science
• Usenet

• Archive
• About
• Privacy
• Search
• Imprint