sci.archaeology
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone

Subject: Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
From: Tomi
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:47:11 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology, soc.culture.nordic, soc.history.medieval
Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:mmhnf1d4hd0a7f8igri56o6jmkq58m7hpl@xxxxxxx:  

> If, as has been suggested by
> Scott Wolter, the KRS was intended to mark out a land claim it may be
> that it was always intended to create markers in stone and they
> brought along tools for the purpose.

Then he must have examples of that kind of behavior in the 14th century.
>>
>>Everything is possible but certain things just are less likely than
>>others. 
>>
>>Here' a competing scenario: Somebody with connections to Minnesota gets
>>his hands on a Medieval document, perhaps it reads exactly as the text
>>on the stone. This person has strong nationalistic, anti-Swedish
>>sentiments, or perhaps he just wants to make money. Maybe both. He
>>contacts Ohman who then  "finds" the stone carved for the purpose.
> 
> You have to overcome obstacle of the apparent two hundred years or
> more of weathering on the stone if you are to support this theory.

Every stone that has been exposed to the elements shows signs of it. But you 
must mean that those places where the chisels were used show signs of 
weathering. If so, then it is likely that the inscriptions are genuinly old.

Then again, the solution can't be that simple. If it was, we would not be 
discussing it here.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>