Subject:      Re: Kensington Stone & S. Williams: debunking went wrong?
From:         yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date:         1997/08/18
Message-ID:   <5tag1m$n8j$1@trends.ca>
Newsgroups:   sci.archaeology,soc.history.medieval,soc.history.what-if,
	soc.culture.nordic,sci.skeptic


Lennart Regebro ([22]lennart.regebro@stockholm.mail.telia.com) wrote:
: [23]yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
:
: >Lennart Regebro ([24]lennart.regebro@stockholm.mail.telia.com) wrote:
: >: [25]hmccullo@ecolan.sbs.ohio-state.edu (Hu McCulloch) wrote:
: >:
: >: In WRITING during the 14th century?
: >
: >And how do you you think we would have known this otherwise? Were you
: >thinking about ...a Time Machine?
:
: Ever heard of lingustics? Doesn't matter, the  and  signs still prove
: that KRS is a fake.

Lennart,

You're obviously wrong about this. This objection has been
answered many times in relevant literature, as all your other
objections. So you should get informed before you try to reinvent
the wheel in such an inept fashion.

Nilsestuen (1994) writes on p. 80 in regard to o^ (umlauted o):

     Of the 13 obituary notices shown in _Obitarium
     Nestvediensis_, dating from the 14th c., six or seven begin
     with an o^ which is practically the same as in the
     [Kensington] inscription.

Further, he quotes from Holand (1932):

     Inasmuch as we find there was no standard form in the 14th
     century for the o^, but find it written both with and
     without interior lines, and also with and without dots above
     ... there can be no legitimate objection to any of these
     forms.

As has been already pointed out to you and others in this thread,
the "mythical genius peasant forger" should have known A GREAT
DEAL about medieval epigraphy, and must have kept up with the latest
scholarly journals? Because, further on, Holand says:

     Very few examples of 14th-century paleography were published
     until about 1900. ... The supposed forger had no means of
     knowing how these Latin letters were written in the 14th c.
     unless he were a specialist in Scandinavian paleography.

So this is what I mean by the fantastic scenarios of our
misguided KRS debunkers...

About x^ (umlauted a) Nilsestuen says on p. 90:

     The use of a dot or other small sign above the root vowel to
     express the umlaut became general in the 14th century. This
     manner of writing x^ was used 25 times in a manuscript of
     the old _Vestgoetalag_ from 1280.

Also, on p. 96, Nilsestuen cites Seip (1954) about contemporary
Oslo Chancery manuscripts using these symbols. I guess you were
simply unaware of these?

And, he cites Thalbitzer (1946-47 and 1951, 26) who pointed out
the use of o^ (umlauted o) in the Kingiqtorsuak, Greenland,
inscription ca. 1333. This is even more important BECAUSE HERE IS
A CONTEMPORARY AND UNDOUBTED RUNIC INSCRIPTION FROM GREENLAND
that has many parallels with the KRS.

So which Scandinavian expert in these threads was it who claimed
that no such inscriptions exist? Why wouldn't the gentleman in
question come out and admit HONESTLY that HE WAS WRONG?

Yours truly,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- Specializing in factitious editing
of other people's posts since 1997 -=O=- [26]http://www.io.org/~yuku

You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes
   _________________________________________________________________


Subject:      Re: Kensington Stone
From:         yuku@mail.trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date:         1997/08/21
Message-ID:   <5ti398$9ie$1@trends.ca>
Newsgroups:   sci.archaeology,soc.history.medieval,
	soc.culture.nordic,sci.skeptic

Lennart Regebro ([22]lennart.regebro@stockholm.mail.telia.com) wrote:

        ...

: Well, give me findings of runic material with umauts, then.
: (Yes, Yuri claims these exist. We'll see).

Geez, Lennart, what more do you want me to give you? I've ALREADY GIVEN
YOU THIS! Why is it so difficult to explain to Scandinavians about the
runes? What kind of an educational system do you have down there, I
wonder?

So here are parts of my recent post again:

(Just today Hu objected to one of the examples I've given. He is probably
right, but THIS WAS JUST ONE OF MANY EXAMPLES AVAILABLE.)

[begin quote]

Subject: Re: Kensington Stone & S. Williams: debunking went wrong?
Date: 18 Aug 1997 21:49:42 GMT
Message-ID: <5tag1m$n8j$1@trends.ca>

        ...

About x^ (umlauted a) Nilsestuen says on p. 90:

     The use of a dot or other small sign above the root vowel to
     express the umlaut became general in the 14th century. This
     manner of writing x^ was used 25 times in a manuscript of
     the old _Vestgoetalag_ from 1280.

Also, on p. 96, Nilsestuen cites Seip (1954) about contemporary Oslo
Chancery manuscripts using these symbols [ADDITION: Including x^. These
manuscripts are dated from 1370].

[end quote]

Also, on p. 90, Nilsestuen cites the use of the dotted "a" in that
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT Kingiqtorsuak, Greenland, runic inscription, ca. 1333.
HERE IS A CONTEMPORARY AND UNDOUBTED RUNIC INSCRIPTION FROM GREENLAND that
has many parallels with the KRS. I guess our sainted experts from
soc.history.nordic just never happened to hear about it, eh?

So why do I have to explain to you guys that x^ (umlauted "a" with both
one and two dots) is an umlauted rune? So this was one dotted rune that
I've already given, but you just managed to miss it?

Nilsestuen gives many more examples of various early dotted runes in his
book. (There are 5 of them in KRS, and all five are attested in
contemporary Scandinavian manuscripts.) If you really insist, I will post
more of them for you later, so that our esteemed Scandinavian experts can
finally learn the simple fact that UMLAUTS WERE CERTAINLY USED WITH RUNES
IN THE 14TH CENTURY!

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- Specializing in factitious
editing of other people's posts since 1997 -=O=- my webpage
is at [23]http://www.io.org/~yuku

It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
   _________________________________________________________________


Click here to go one level up in the directory.