Re: Hooked 'X' Runes and where they have been found.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:54:31 +0000, "David B."
<tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

if they were known to the person who devised the "secret" runes
which form the basis of both the Larsson runerows and the KRS.

So now you are requiring two layers of special knowledge. The first is
the person who, unlike the experts, knew enough about the rare runes
found in scattered sources to enable them to be incorporated in the
Larsson rune row. The second is another person who, unlike the
experts, knew of the Larsson rune row and incorporated some of them in
the KRS.

Not quite. First we have the person or persons who submitted the two runerows for the use of an unknown Masonic-style organisation, possibly quite a long time before 1883. Second we have all the members of that organisation, who were subsequently expected to learn the two sets of runes, the pigpen alphabet, the pentadic numerals etc.

The lack of some Larsson runes (from
complete runerows) on the KRS (a short narrative) is virtually
inevitable.

Why. Are you no longer trying to argue that the KRS used the same rune
row as the Larsson runes?

Why? Because any short text other than one specifically designed to feature all letters of the alphabet is likely to miss some out. On the other hand, when letters of a short text do not appear in the alphabet- that's noteworthy.

Comparing the Larsson runes with Nielsen's transcript of the
KRS, I find that every KRS rune closely resembles its like-sounding
equivalent in one or both of the Larsson rows (even to the extent of
using the traditional "th" rune for "d"), except as follows:
g: mirror version of Larsson row 1 rune / undotted version of row 2 rune
o: mirror version of row 1 rune
v: as row 2, but with dot instead of hook
umlaut-u: as row 2, but with horizontal stroke across vertical shaft
umlaut-o: as row 2, but with horizontal stroke across vertical shaft

What is your source for this?

Comparison of the Larsson papers with Nielsen's transcript of the KRS runes (although actually I initially made my own transcript from photos of the stone) and generally accepted conversions of the KRS text to the conventional alphabet.

It seems that learners of the
Larsson runes were supposed to destroy their notes once they had
memorised them.

Why do you say this? Is this another element of your hypothesis?

It's a very likely explanation for the lack of other copies of the Larsson runerows, given the hints about a quasi-Masonic context in the Larsson papers.

"I have a very small amount of positive evidence- the Larsson
runerows and the KRS, both accepted to have existed by the late 19th
century, and found thousands of miles apart. The Larsson papers imply
that these runes were being actively taught, but no other copies of the
two runerows are known, which suggests that they were intended to be
kept secret.

But the Larsson rune row and the runes of the KRS are not the same. So
why are you trying to argue a connection?

As noted above, in reality the runes of the KRS are all found within the Larsson runerows except for the minor differences I describe. So why are people like Nielsen attempting to argue a lack of connection?

I am proposing that the KRS was created by, or with
the connivance of, somebody who had authority to allocate land plots in
Solem township, and would be able to keep the burial site reserved until
such time as it was deemed advantageous for a settler to grub up the
trees and find the stone. If the stone really was created around the
1850s, then it is likely that its creators were dead, and their
intention forgotten, by the time the plot was finally allocated.

Details of the history of the settlement of the region were given in
this news group some years ago. Do you have the details? Is this
aspect of your hypothesis even possible?

I am aware of the timeline of settlement, and details such as the preponderance of Scandinavian settlers during the early years of Holmes City from about 1860 onward.

I'd advise a close study of town administrative records of the period for both Solem and Holmes City.

So you don't have the details. What do you expect to find in the
respective administrative records?

Given that the KRS was found in one of the small number of plots in Solem township reserved as "Internal Improvement Land", it would be interesting to try and find when, why (purportedly), and at whose instigation this designation was made- plus, obviously, any later records relating to the plot before it was acquired by Ohman.

The development of modern
Swedish had only just begun in 1362, yet the KRS displays a wide variety
of linguistic developments which occurred only in isolation during the
medieval period. However, the KRS does display some forms which were
archaic by the 19th century, and would have survived only in areas with little exposure to modern literature.

My recollection is that Williams described the language as 'modern'
only in the sense that it is consistent with a period later than 1362.
It didn't need to be much later and he certainly didn't mean that it
was consistent with 19th century Swedish. My present understanding is
that more recent studies have largely removed the description of
'modern'.

The KRS language is sufficiently "modern" to be understood without much difficulty by 21st century Swedes, which would not be true of most 14th century texts, littered with unfamiliar case endings etc. In the other direction, it has belatedly occurred to me that the KRS archaisms could be deliberate, the result of a 19th century author looking through the dictionary for words noted specifically as obsolete.

David B.
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast