Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
Source: http://sci.tech−archive.net/Archive/sci.archaeology/2006−01/msg00510.html
• From: "Daryl Krupa"
• Date: 10 Jan 2006 21:23:43 −0800
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
> Eric Stevens wrote in
> news:rqf5s154k1mpj14cig5bvehdedjmb25lh5@xxxxxxx:
>
>
> > The would−be forger has to carefully apply these to the newly
> > split surfaces of the KRS making sure that they don't overdo it.
> > After all the exposed surface has to look old but not older than
> > genuinely old surface. Treating the corners would be a particular
> > problem.
>>
> > I suppose they could have started with all−new surfaces and added
> > fake glacial scratches later, for versimilitude.
>>
>
Eric:
I did not see any of the above with my newsreader.
Trying to look at the original message got an "access denied" page.
So, don't be surprise if I don't reply to your message
that Lisbeth is replying to, here, because I only have that little
excerpt;
in sci.archaeology, Context is Everything.
All that I can say is this:
− the inscribed surfaces of the KRS (frontside and left side)
need not have been newly split, as there is no objective evidence that
their creation was contemporaneous with the act of inscription;
− if all you have to do is make all the surfaces look equally−aged,
then
all you have to do is maximise the weathering on all surfaces, so that
overdoing it is a virtue.
One need only apply weathering agents to all surfaces equally until
either all surfaces appear to be weathered, which may or may not mean
that all surfaces appear to be equally weathered.
If the newest surfaces are not as weathered as the older surfaces,
that is perfectly fine, because
nobody knows how weathered
any of those surfaces
Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters. 1
Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
is supposed to look
after any amount of weathering.
So long as the newer surfaces look as old as, or younger than,
the older surfaces, it's all good.
Yes, if the newer surfaces looked older than the older surfaces,
then that would indicate a forgery, but there is no need to take
that chance by treating only the newest surfaces.
A prudent and competent forger would be unlikely to try to do that,
any more than a person with tan un−tanned patches of skin
masked from weathering by a swim suit)
would mask off all her previously−tanned skin and hope that
the tanning booth would not create darker versions of the
previously−un−tanned patches of her skin.
> No, any forgerer would *not have started with any newly split
> surfaces. He/she/they would have started with a stone with naturally
> flat surfaces, maybe polished by ice a long time ago.
Lisbeth:
Agreed. The inscribed surfaces of the KRS seem to split along
pre−existing fracture planes, but that does not mean that the splitting
was done by a human being.
The splitting of the parent stone that created the flat sides of the
KRS
could be millennia older than the inscription.
> I have been assuming that any dating on the stone is done inside the
> carved text, because showing that the other parts are a lot older does
> not really prove anything. Showing that they are younger than 500
> years would of course be interesting. Is this another example of why
> you should not assume anything?
Yes. The inscription itself has not been dated directly,
only its context.
−
Daryl Krupa
.
• Follow−Ups:
♦ Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
◊ From: Eric Stevens
♦ Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
◊ From: Lisbeth Andersson
♦ Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
◊ From: I E_Johansson
Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters. 2
Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
• References:
♦ Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
◊ From: Lisbeth Andersson
♦ Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
◊ From: Daryl Krupa
♦ Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
◊ From: Eric Stevens
♦ Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
◊ From: Daryl Krupa
♦ Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
◊ From: Eric Stevens
♦ Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
◊ From: Daryl Krupa
♦ Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
◊ From: Eric Stevens
♦ Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
◊ From: Lisbeth Andersson
• Prev by Date: Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
• Next by Date: Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
• Previous by thread: Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
• Next by thread: Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters.
• Index(es):
♦ Date
♦ Thread
Re: Kensington Runestone − Nielsen and Wolters. 3