sci.archaeology
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone

Subject: Re: Challenge for naysayers of the Kensington Runestone
From: "t(nospam)kavanagh" <"tkavanag"@(nospam)indiana.edu>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 12:04:25 -0500
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology, soc.culture.nordic, soc.history.medieval
ie wrote:
> 
> "t(nospam)kavanagh" <"tkavanag"@(nospam)indiana.edu> skrev i meddelandet
> news:dd7m82$4b1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ie wrote:
> > >
> > > "t(nospam)kavanagh" <"tkavanag"@(nospam)indiana.edu> skrev i meddelandet
> > > news:dd6f5o$ocd$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Tom McDonald wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > >         I mean, hell; she's got the year, 1520; that the potential
> > > forger was
> > > > > a priest; and that the KRS was intended to be used as part of a land
> > > > > claim, presumably a land claim that would have been hot in the early
> > > > > 16th century. There were damned few Europeans, much less
> Scandinavians,
> > > > > roaming around the interior then, Inger's fantasies to the contrary
> > > > > notwithstanding.
> > > > >         Even assuming the damned rock could have been carved
> elsewhere
> > > and
> > > > > brought to western Minnesota, there ought to be a very limited
> number
> > > > > of land claims in west of the Great Lakes that early. The Holy See
> had
> > > > > alloted the land to Spain; but Spain was busy elsewhere then.
> > > > >
> > > > >         So I'm curious as to what could be taking so much time for
> Inger
> > > to
> > > > > track down.
> > > >
> > > > 1520? That's the year Cortez burned his boats at Vera Cruz wasn't it?
> > > >
> > > > tk
> > >
> > > 1521 not 1520
> >
> > Wrong. It was 1519.
> 
> Do you believe that. Well the documents are from 1521.

I don't know what you are talking about. The documents documents clearly
say 1519.

tk

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