Re: Geology Question (KRS related)

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 05:39:02 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:



"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ass2u1pmq8mk9bm5kbjp9qhctdfv1o6mqv@xxxxxxxxxx
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.

LOL. Wasn't the argument that the hill was "this island" (as which is how
the inscription reads) because the land is boggy and swampy?

I don't know why you feel the urge to 'LOL'. Are you trying to
minimise my point? If you wan't to continue to claim that someone has
argued that the hill was boggy and swampy, I suggest that you get up
off the floor and find a credible source for that allegation.
otherwise it makes no sense.

Assuming that
the hill was not swampy or boggy, doesn't a rigorous analysis demand
comparison of below ground samples from the Maine tombstones with the KRS?

No useful conclusion could be drawn from such a study if the
conditions are significantly different, as they seem to be.

The authors seemed to think so since they clearly intended to take such
samples. They state that they did not do so because of a pH difference in
the soil between the Maine and Minnesota locations. If that's the case,
isn't the reader entitled to know what that pH difference was, and why it
impacted the originally intended comparison??

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


Steve



Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
    ... Runestone Hill as fitting the term "island" which appears on the ... the particular site ever was swampy or boggy. ... "The KRS was discovered buried in soil that one might safely ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
    ... Runestone Hill as fitting the term "island" which appears on the ... the particular site ever was swampy or boggy. ... "The KRS was discovered buried in soil that one might safely ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
    ... Runestone Hill as fitting the term "island" which appears on the ... the particular site ever was swampy or boggy. ... Wolter clearly knows what the pH is on Runestone Hill? ... "The KRS was discovered buried in soil that one might safely ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
    ... Runestone Hill as fitting the term "island" which appears on the KRS. ... the particular site ever was swampy or boggy. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Geology Question (KRS related)
    ... Runestone Hill as fitting the term "island" which appears on the KRS. ... the particular site ever was swampy or boggy. ...
    (sci.archaeology)