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

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 04:46:22 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dt24p4h93iddcanuv6ditg3qsdp6o451ud@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:12:11 +0000, "David B."
<tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

... and they had to be in place to allow the KRS to be carved and
buried some time before 1855. In fact, the weathering of the stones
suggests it all occurred several centuries earlier than its finding.

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.

I think you will find that in places the KRS uses alternatives to the
Larsson runes.

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.

OK. All your own work. I presume you have not read Nielsen/Wolters
most recent writing on the subject.

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?

Read his writing on the subject and you will find.

I suspect that Nielsen's writings don't come free of charge ...

Jeez! You gotta buy his book or the on-line copies of his papers! I
cited the most recent publication that I know of. Are you really too
mean to either buy a copy or borrow it through your local library?

And I suspect that he would prefer his beliefs (and they are truly beliefs,
not just knowledge based upon scientific method) be accepted as accurate.

Great. You haven't read them (otherwise you wouldn't say "I suspect
that Nielsen's writings don't come free of charge ... ") yet you
describe them as 'beliefs'. You haven't changed, have you Steve?


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.

When in that time line do you think the KRS was carved?

What does that matter?

It has a great deal to do with who might (or might not) have been
around to carve the KRS.


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.

Michael Zalar may already have done this.

May...

Yep. May.


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.

You seem to be prepared to weave a very complicated hypothetical
structure as an alternative to considering the KRS to be what it
purports to be. I think that part of the problem is that you are being
mislead by the apparent Masonic connections.

Do you argue that David's hypotheticals require more complexity than the
circumstance of this runestone just happening to have been discovered in a
section of North America with a large population of Scandinavian immigrants,
many of whom felt aggrieved that their ancestors weren't getting the credit
for "discovering America" that was conveyed on Columbus?

There is no complexity in the scenario you describe once you omit the
irrelevancies.

No runestone anywhere near locations that can be documented as having been
visited by Norse explorers from their Atlantic colonies. No runestones that
display the cultural attributes of typical authentic runestones. Just a
runestone that specifically identifies no one by name, located at a center
of Scandinavian descended immigrants.

Your are describing all the reasons why it doesn't fit your
expectations for a rune stone. Does it matter that it doesn't fit your
expectations?

And the fact that the Larsson runes now provide the answer as to why the
experts originally did not believe the thing to be 14th century; the runes
would not have been familiar to non-Freemason experts.

It does not at all provide the reasons why the 'experts' did not
originally believe the KRS to be 14th century. The 'experts' did not
even know of the Larsson rune row.

So: A runestone purporting to be a 14th century artifact, that does not fit
cultural norms for such runestones, that employs runes having few 14th
century century precedents known to "experts" in the field, but turns out to
bear runes closley resembling runes created by a "secret society" of sorts,
turns up in a population center people by Scandinavian immigrants aggrieved
by Columbus getting credit for their ancestors' discovery.

You are wrong about the lack of 14th century precedents. You are
probably wrong about the (presumably Larsson runes) being 'created' by
a secret society.

What does Occam tell you: A) It's authentic, and the resemblance of the
runes to the Larsson runes is coincidence, its discovery precisely where it
would be appreciated and where it would be in the interest of the ocal
population to believe it to be authentic is yet another happy coincidence?
Or B) It's a lately created hoax designed to "stir the pot"?

You are misusing Occam.



Eric Stevens
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hooked X Runes and where they have been found.
    ... which form the basis of both the Larsson runerows and the KRS. ... runes, the pigpen alphabet, the pentadic numerals etc. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Hooked X Runes and where they have been found.
    ... rare runes, found in "scattered" sources, serve as precedents for both the KRS and the Larsson runerows. ... But only if they were all known to the carver of the KRS. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Hooked X Runes and where they have been found.
    ... which form the basis of both the Larsson runerows and the KRS. ... 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. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Hooked X Runes and where they have been found.
    ... which form the basis of both the Larsson runerows and the KRS. ... runes, the pigpen alphabet, the pentadic numerals etc. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Hooked X Runes and where they have been found.
    ... which form the basis of both the Larsson runerows and the KRS. ... runes, the pigpen alphabet, the pentadic numerals etc. ...
    (sci.archaeology)