sci.archaeology
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Kensington Runestone and other artifacts a reminder

Subject: Re: Kensington Runestone and other artifacts a reminder
From: Tom McDonald
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:43:45 -0800
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology, soc.history.medieval
IE_Johansson wrote:
Doug,
you doesn't understand what I am saying at all.
I don't care if source A is written by my worst enemy if it contains what
source B to Z together tells,
provided that I checked the ref given in source B to Z(which I have) and I
also checked in other sources available, such as in this case excavation
report from a place closer to the Lake mentioned.

If you as a scholar ONLY should refer to sources which from a political
point of view is correct given your own view, then you aren't much of a
scholar showing off as one who can't place yourself above that and read,
validate the text instead of the writer's mind no matter how much one
distaste and in some cases hate the writer that's important to be able to
see the work and not the man!

Inger E


Even if this had been published in an impeccable scholarly journal, it would still have been a crap reference *for what it was intended to support*. The question was regarding the provenance of the 'Minnesota firesteel.'

It didn't answer Doug's question. It was throwing a whole bunch of crap at the wall, hoping some would stick and make us forget what we were talking about. Seems to have worked.

There appears to be no useful provenance for the 'Minnesota firesteel'; and a great deal of evidence that fire steels similar in morphology to the 'Minnesota firesteel' were dead common between Roman times and American frontier days (see a previous post of mine). Unless there is some new evidence, or unless Inger is hiding the evidence that confirms her view, Ockham's Razor suggests that the item is most likely to be post-Columbian.

"Doug Weller" <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:e95fn11lgnq4snebjb3vg3l4phr8fq7bsr@xxxxxxxxxx

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:19:02 GMT, in sci.archaeology, IE_Johansson wrote:


Doug,
you can check all claims in the article if you know how to look around

for

information on net or if you start with the works being edited in the
Kensington Runestone debate over the years. But of course you need to

spend

a week or two reading all the works, where btw good ref. is given to

every

single detail only that you have to read not one not two but at least 20

of

the edited works.


Ok, you didn't understand what I wrote, I'll rephrase. A source where you
have to exhaustively search the net, read everything written on the
subject, whatever, is useless and bad -- I expect a claim for, for
instance, a firesteel, to be accompanied by a reference to somewhere that
verifies this claim.  Articles like the ones you cite which give no
references are useless as sources so far as I'm concerned.

Doug


Inger E
"Doug Weller" <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:94ten1l9els3qs1ej1ns3c4p7j5oqqjsik@xxxxxxxxxx

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 15:26:48 GMT, in sci.archaeology, IE_Johansson

wrote:

Doug,
NO! No souce are useless. No matter who present facts, assumptions

valid

or

invalid, useless they are not!
It's up to the reader to validate the content of a text with an open

mind

and not reading information as if it must be wrong/false because it's

not

written by 'correct' political viewed scholars!

Any source is useless if you can't check its claims -- as is the case

with

the Barnes site.  And it's obscene.

Doug

Inger E

"Doug Weller" <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:8scen117o5k3lbeutb9r37v2kfvs9enn90@xxxxxxxxxx

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:48:14 -0000, in sci.archaeology, Dylan Sung

wrote:

"IE_Johansson" <ingere.johansson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Jftdf.38013$d5.194721@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Michael W Cook" <NuffSpam@xxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:BF9C0806.18FB9%NuffSpam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 12/11/05 20:15, in article

rricn1dvsrnvsgc0i11lqemrjqai00cuh2@xxxxxxx,

"Doug Weller" <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 11:18:47 GMT, in sci.archaeology,

IE_Johansson

wrote:

[SNIP]

"The waterway also contains possible signs of Viking

presence.

At

Cormorant

Lake in Becker County, Minnesota there are three boulders

with

triangular

holes similar to those used for mooring boats along the coast

of

Norway

in

the 14th century. Holand found other triangular holes in

rocks

near

where

the stone was found. A 14th century Scandinavian firesteel

was

found

between

the Cormorant Lake and Kensington, where the Runestone was

found."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_runestone

And the next sentences are:
"Other Viking artifacts dating from the 14th century have

turned

up

in

Minnesota but apparently none were recovered under controlled
archaeological conditions and it has been impossible to

eliminate

the

possibility they were brought by Europeans centuries later.

Similarly,

the

dating of any Viking-like mooring holes cut into rocks in the

region

has
been elusive."

Can anyone provide any details about the alleged Minnesota

firesteel?

Inger has written that it was "The fishing hooks and firesteel
found close to the Twin Cities in a cave during excavation in

'cor'

distance from the findingplace of KRS are only a few of a hugh

amount

of
supressed artifacts in Minnesota alone. "

But I cannot find any useful reference to this alleged

firesteel.

I

can't

find the source of it, anything about the archaeologists she

says

looked
at it, nada. Can anyone else help please?

Thanks

Doug


I can't help but I'll give you some advice.

Ignore everything Inger writes.

But if you must engage with her, take the complete opposite

stance

to

what
she takes and you'll likely be right on the button.





Michael W Cook,
Below you once again proven that your only goal is to offend me.

What

have

you written that's contradicted by my articles to the

discussiongroups?

Why do you mind if and when what I write one by one is proven

true????

you are not only abusive - you are also telling lies once again.

I

am

not

the one who presented the firesteel found in Minnesota.

Had you been a serious scholar of archaeology or history, you

would

have

been able to find the firesteel mentioned in url:s like
http://kensingtonmn.com/runestonepg.html
"These instruments include a firesteel for making fires; a

ceremonial

halbred signifying a royal expedition; a heavy battle axe with a

16

inch

cutting edge; a light battle axe, used for fighting men in

armoured

suits;

a
spear head; a Nordic sword, and other relics which include

mooring

stone

pins. "

or in following url:s (quotes first, url after)

Furthermore, a Scandinavian firesteel was found in the vicinity

of

the

route
the party must have taken to reach Kensington, Minn., the place

where a

simple Scandinavian country farmer uncovered one of the greatest

mysteries

of North America
http://www.barnesreview.org/TBR_Conference_Report_2002.pdf.

not to mention:
" Other artifacts?
The waterway also contains possible signs of Viking presence. At

Cormorant

Lake in Becker County, Minnesota there are three boulders with

triangular

holes similar to those used for mooring boats along the coast of

Norway

in

the 14th century. Holand found other triangular holes in rocks

near

where

the stone was found. A 14th century Scandinavian firesteel was

found

between
the Cormorant Lake and Kensington, where the Runestone was

found."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_runestone>

But that's not all. You could have had a photo of the firesteel,

and

other

scandinavian firesteels found via the Kensington Runestone

Museum.

The

one

from Aaland you could have found on a photo looking around in

Scandinavian

History Museum's photo archieves over artifacts found and

registered.

You didn't. You decided to pick on me instead of trying to read

what

you

needed and look at what you needed in order to come up with a

valid

conclusion.
It's a pitty that you aren't a serious scholar.

Inger E


Do true scholars really resort to these types of source?


Those sources are useless. Nothing scholarly about them at all, and

one

of

them is IMHO obscene.

Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at

http://www.hallofmaat.com

Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk



--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk



--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk






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