inger e johansson

PRESENT STAGE IN KRS QUEST
© Johansson Inger E, Gothenburg February 2004 - All rights reserved. Which
includes that No one is allowed to write inside my text.

Some in the groups have made an issue over the weathering, some have dreamt
dreams about an earlier 1800's runemaster/carver, some have hard to
understand the additional photometric detail-study of each runes which is
underway.


That the Linguist Helmer Gustavsson hasn't moved from his position that he
from an linguistic point has hard to believe it to be from 1362 is a
wellknown fact. Which he still maintain. Professor Williams hasn't to my
knowledge been involved with the tests and discussions at Historiska Museet
after the thing that the Director of Historiska said about the significant
differences between Humanistic Science and Technical Science.

The Geologist Runo Löfvendahl aren't that certain, he thinks that most
points to a late 1800's carving but he aren't absolutely certain. His main
objections against a 1362 carvings is:

* It's not been possible to repeat Scott Wolter's testresults regarding the
mica.

If same type of analyses have been made or not hasn't been said. To that can
also be added that up to now no comparing and consideration to Professor of
Geology and Geophysics Paul W Weiblen's "Report on a Partial Mineralogical
Characterization of the Kensington Rune Stone". For a complete picture I
assume that every scholar realise that to has to be added to the final
conclusions.

* It's not proven that the runes on one of the sides is made at the same
time as the stone was dressed to become flat. Thus the weathering in the
runes on that side haven't been able to be as old as the weathering in the
surrounding surface on same side.

My comments:
To that one can add one thing: How likely is it that someone took his time
several hundred years ago to dress a stone, that part hasn't been disputed,
and that one other person in 1800's found a stone dressed on one side?

* The tests at Historiska Museet hasn't been able to prove that the white
tracks on the Kensington runestone are identical to Olof Ohman's affidavits
about the aspen roots.

My comments:
To that one can add that no other affidavit what so ever regarding the roots
seems to have been taken into consideration up to this point but they must
be in the full analyse-conclusions.
Those affidavits include:
a) Affidavits by several who saw the roots among them Mr Samuel Olson and Mr
Johan E Johnson.

b) Affidavits given by those who excavated the place where the stone was
found and thus also saw the stump of the tree that according to their
testamony showed signs of having had a stone above - for example the


Among them executive clerk Cleve Van Dyke, J P Hedberg; John M Olson; Albert
larson; Fulick Landsvark and others. "Answers were received from several of
the party, all of them confirming the describtion of Mr Olson". Source 'The
Kensington Rune Stone, Preliminary Report to the Minnesota Historical
Society", Museum Committee of the Minnesota historical Society 1915,
Minnesota Historical Society Collection V. 15, pp 221-286

Other information:
Some have wondered why the tests in Stockholm have included photometric
tests of micro-details in each runes. Those tests have been done because the
tests made has resulted in a need to preform a close photometric analyse
using the latest micro-topographic analyse methods. What's possible to
establish will be if the runemaster was an experienced runemaster or not. In
other words did he hold the chisel in same angle each time he carved a
certain rune; how deep did he cut down in the stone's surface; did he make
mistakes and if so how many and where; if the hand that hold the chisel was
a hand of a left- or righthanded person; to what extant the runes have been
'filled' in long after the runes were carved. All conclusions drawn will be
presented in 'Fornvännen' a Swedish Journal of Science when the analyses are
finished.

According to information I have had Professor Williams and Dr Nielsen
continue their linguistic discussions and the problem that they are facing
is whether or not Ohman could have had access to a book where figures in
1840 was editet in same pedantic form as on KRS. They know now that a book
with such was edited. Whether or not Ohman, observe none else is discussed
as a plausible carver, had had access to that information or not is
according to the information Nielsen gave me in October one Gordian knot.
The yoke from 1907 can't be used neither for or against KRS, which so many
scholars correctly have said.

Some scholars who have seen the Kensington Runestone has said that they
might consider it to be genuine if additive artifacts and or remains in
ground will add to the context. Observe that neither has the 'e-dialect' nor
the in earlier discussioned rised against Scandinavians being in the middle
of North America in 1360's been discussed for or against. Nor has Paul
Knutson and Ivar Bardson's voyage been included in what's told me, any one I
know or printed after the final tests have been done. There are a lot of
concrete analyses to be made by Laila Kitzler, specialist in runemaster's
carving-techniques, working at Stockholm's University who is to analyse all
the advanced micro-topographic pictures of the Kensington runestone's
carvings.

Also please observe that three articles presenting a context showing that
Ivar Bardson did return and delivered the tithes for all dioceses under
Gardar. (Diplomatarium Norwegicum Bind 4 nr 442, original in Dipl. Arn.
Magn. fasc. 35. No. 13.) and that the tithes from the years in question
1354-1364(delivering date always same as the year which is set for the
tithes) included tithes from Vinland and presentation of other facts will be
in the full text of the three articles to be edited within months.
(Original about the tithes in Vatican archieve, works about the originaltext
's content can be found in: Shipley, Marie A. [Brown]. The Norse
Colonization in America by the Light of the Vatican Finds. Lucerne: H.
Keller's Foreign Printing Office, [1899]. ; Recent Disclosures Concerning
Pre-Columbian Voyages to America in the Archives of the Vatican By William
Elerot Curtis ; Recent Disclosures Concerning Pre-Columbian Voyages to
America in the Archives of the Vatican-Jan. 31, 1894 National Geographic
Society) More referenses will be presented within articles.

My conclusion: I agree with Professor of Art History Brunius who argued for
the stone not being carved in 1800's. As said by those who at present
studies the stone - the debate isn't over at all. What's been acchived so
far is that the focus returns to the roots. Before all the affidavits re.
them and Professor Weiblen's report have been included in the total picture
nothing regarding when the stone was carved can be said. It's worth pointing
to the fact that no one else but Ohman has been considered by scholars at
Historiska Museet and that Professor Williams has expressed that he is
certain that Ohman didn't do it.

Inger E
© Johansson Inger, 1st February 2004 - all rights reserved.

PS. I will not discuss my text above before all reports and articles have
been edited.

alan crozier

<snip>

Inger says she isn't going to discuss this yet, so my question must be
directed at all the other readers here. Any theories/explanations as to why
these Vatican finds have not been cited by any scholars since the 1890s -
that memorable decade when so much evidence came to light? I mean, if these
Vatican documents exist, then it's nothing less than sensational stuff. Why
then have they been ignored until now?

Alan

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Alan Crozier
Skatteberga 1392
247 92 Södra Sandby
Sweden
TO REPLY BY E-MAIL: change Crazier to Crozier

david b.

I and others have stated here before that the above document from 1364 has
nothing to do with Gardar. Ivar Bardsson (who certainly had in earlier
years been connected with Gardar) is in this case acting as a witness in
connection with tithes for the diocese of Stavanger.

David B.

david b.

Perhaps they haven't. Perhaps they have been used by a great many
researchers, but nearly all have failed to find in them any firm evidence
for tithe payments from Vinland itself, as opposed to the Gardar
(Greenland) diocese.

David B.

erik hammerstad

It might very well be that the texts mentioned in the Shipley
books are not at all sensational in a scholarly context, and that
while the texts are quoted or mentioned as existing in later
works, they do not give any information in addition to that of
other sources. Observe that whatever Inger writes regarding these
is hardly believable, see for example how much she reads into the
diploma regarding Ivar Bardarson that is not there at all (the
diploma only refers to tithes collected in Stavanger with IB being
one of the two witnesses to its transfer to the papal
representative - no Greenland/Gardar tithes mentioned at all, nor
that IB has any connections to Greenland).

For an example with regard to Vatican material a 1990 Norwegian
Masters thesis by Frode Fyllingsnes states that they are mostly
papal bulls with Gardar being mentioned in lists, or Gardar
bishops participating in gatherings with other church leaders, or
the appointment of new Gardar bishops. The Shipley books are not
included in the bibliography of the thesis which has app. 500 entries.

Of course to get any further one would need to read the Shipley
books and find out exactly what Vatican material they refer to.

erik hammerstad

<snip>

Helmer Gustavson is not a linguist as Inger claims. He is a
runologist, and furthermore an expert on Dalrunor. So his opinion
that the KRS is written in Dalrunor should not be taken lightly.
His scheduled talk on the KRS 17 February at the Ekerö library
might be a very enlightening one.

erik hammerstad

<snip>

Disregarding Inger's ramblings, the source of what she writes
about the (preliminary) results of the Swedish investigations of
the KRS seems to be an article in today's Dagens Nyheter:
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1058&a=228771

"Runologen Helmer Gustavsson tycker att det var värdefullt att för
första gången närmare kunna studera runtexten och verkligen få
umgås med stenen. Han anser att ristningen av runologiska och
språkliga skäl med största sannolikhet inte gjordes på 1300-talet.

Geologen Runo Löfvendahl vill inte vara lika tvärsäker men anser
att det mesta tyder på att stenen ristades någon gång i slutet av
1800-talet. Han tillbakavisar flera av de indicier som en
amerikansk geolog, Scott Wolter, anfört för att ristningen skulle
vara medeltida.

Ett av dessa indicier handlar om vittringsgraden av glimmer i
stenen. Ett annat om att runorna på en av stenens sidor ristades
vid den tid då samma sida bearbetades för att bli slät, vilket
enligt Scott Wolter gjordes flera hundra år före 1800-talets slut.
Ett tredje indicium handlar om att de vita spår som finns på
Kensingtonstenen överensstämmer med Olof Ohmans vittnesmål om att
stenen när den påträffades i jorden var omsluten av asprötter.

- Men vi tycker nog att vi har tryckt hål på dessa indicier, säger
Runo Löfvendahl."

Note that Helmer Gustavson is a runologist, not a linguist as
claimed by Inger. That he is also an expert on Dalrunor implies
that his opinion that the KRS runes are Dalrunor should not be
taken lightly. Hopefully we will get a report on the talk on the
KRS he will give at the Ekerö library February 17, that could be
enlightening.

Allthough the article shows the geologist Löfvendahl to be a
scholar in not being 100% sure, he does dismiss Wolter's claim
regarding the mica weathering showing the runes to be carved
several hundred years ago. And he now concurs with the lingustic
and runic expertise that almost everything points to the KRS
having been carved towards the end of the 19th century.

Have a good meal on your hat, Inger ;-)

doug weller

For 'Elerot' read 'Eleroy' -- a typo I presume.

http://www.sacklunch.net/biography/C...royCurtis.html

As for Marie Shipley:
http://www.vnlnd.net/author/SM01A887.htm
Abstract
Insists that "justice" must be done to the Norse discoverers. "The Church
of Rome" knew about those discoveries but concealed knowledge of them; that
organization has, after all, "the genius for deceit, for trickery," etc.
Properly "the Scandinavian North will . . . resume its true rank" as the
"intellectual and moral leader of the civilized world," as in Leif's day.
[Sorenson]

The immediate necessity of establishing the truth p. 1-34, The manifest
duty of the United States in this question p. 35-52, The evidence that the
Norsemen discovered America in the tenth century p. 53-69, Roman Catholic
cognizance of the fact at the time of the Norse discovery p. 70-76, All the
motives for the concealment and fraud p. 77-99, Columbus' visit to Iceland
p. 100-110, The Scandinavian North and Spain contrasted p. 111-146, The
Norse discoverers and Columbus contrasted p. 147-164, The beneficial
results to the present age and posterity (!?!) of attributing this
momentous discovery to the true persons p. 165-184, The celebration of it
in 1985! p. 185-194 and The righted position of the Scandinavian North
after this justice has been accorded to it p. 195-208 are the 13 chapters
of this book. The bibliography p. 209-213 has 99 entries, including Adam of
Bremen, Ortelius, Grotius, Torfæus, Mallet, Cranz, Forster, Malte-Brun, and
Abraham Mylius 1611 "Treatise de Antiquitate Linguæ Belgicæ". [Bergersen]

Bibliography: p. [209]-212.

The 1890 printing contains a 27-page appendix: "Confirmation from Roman
Catholic authorities of the statements made in this book; namely, that in
the Vatican and other monastic libraries of Europe, are the records and
documents that will fully establish the fact that America was discovered by
Leif Erikson in the year 1000, and that Norse colonies existed there for
several centuries; extracts from Centennial discourse delivered by Rev. Wm.
F. Clark, S.J., at St. Joseph's Church, Philadelphia, July 4th, 1876."
[Sorenson]
[A]ppendix entitled "Suppressed historical facts" (by Roman Catholic
Authorities) added to this edition. [Bergersen]
For Bergersen, see:

Bergersen, Robert. Vinland Bibliography: Writings Relating to the Norse in
Greenland and America. Series: RAVNETRYKK Eds. Helge Salveson and Sigmund
Nesset. Vol. 10. Tromsø: Universitetsbibblioteket I Tromsøs, 1997. 411
pages. (SDS / SDS)

Here are loads of resources on the Vinland question from a Harvard course
on the subject:

http://www.hum.ou.dk/projekter/h-ska...st/cnfmay5.htm

Doug

steve glines

The simple answer is that the study of Norse in North America hit a
zenith about 1900. No one seriously studied the topic again till the
early 1950's. Everyone knows that science in the 19th century was full
of crackpots so why bother reading any of it.

I sat in on a PhD orals once where the student "discovered" all the same
ideas of the "fully discredited" economist Parado (I hope I spelled his
name right). When I grilled the student I discovered that he had never
read Parado because everyone knew his ideas were discredited.

I would suggest that there is a bias in science that no work done more
than 50 years ago is credible, except, of course, for the great
luminaries. I suggest that it might be a better exercise to start with
these 19th century researchers and examine their work and data in the
light of modern tools and techniques.

Cheers
SG

martin reboul

You mean 1890's chiseller I presume. If not Inger, I am myself a 'Runemaster' by
your definition. Is there some sort of outfit that goes with this station? I
rather like dressing up, but there are limits even to my dignity - no lederhosen for example.

No luck there either then, eh? Don't worry, I'm sure some kook will turn up to
give you hope sooner or later Inger. Shame about the 'weathering' too - but I'm
afraid I did warn you....


Why not? They were 'inconclusive' were they not?
You should be very relieved and happy, if not delighted with merely 'inconclusive'
Inger - any scientist will tell you that is the very best you can hope for.


Aha... it all becomes clear....

My comment:
I see desperation setting in here.

My comments:

No roots, no pictures, photos or evidence of any kind other than a few laymen
basically saying "they saw it tangled in some roots".
I'm sure most of them did..... unfortunately for you Inger, there is no chemical,
physical or structural evidence on the stone itself - no roots, no case.


A way of saying "have a close at them" designed to sound impressive and scientific.


And be quite pointless and irrelevant. Stonemasons throughout history have had
varying degrees of skill and ability, just as they did in late 19th century
Minnesota - so what?

Mind you, if the mason *was* left handed, you really are seriously f***ed aren't
you! Perhaps I shall order a copy after all...?


Still speaking to you is he?


What is this continuing obsession with poor old Olaf? He quite obviously didn't
carve it, this old chestnut has surely been cast aside by now?

I'm not stupid Inger - I know why I got such a massive amount of flak from you and
the rest of the runeheads when I took him 'out of the loop' - one of your last,
desperately absurd defences demolished. I didn't realise what I'd actually done -
not until I came under sustained, determined and never ending attack from Yuri
Konspiracy, Seppo the Clown, yourself and the late Larry Athy... then the penny
dropped.
You should be ashamed of yourselves, as poor old Olaf Ohman was a decent man,
whose reputation has been callously sacrificed in order to try and confuse,
obfusticate and prop up your ridiculous claims for the KRS being a pukkah 14th
century artefact, which it clearly isn't. In my opinion, that's not only dishonest
and deceitful, but downright despicable too, using a good, honest man so. One who
can't answer back of course - so I feel a duty to answer for him. I'm *soooo*
sorry you don't like it!


Which they are not.


Unfortunate to mention 'concrete' when you are on thin ice Inger - or is this a
reference to Wolter? It doesn't matter how beautifully, carefully and immaculately
recorded the visual details of the actual carvings are recorded, it means nothing
when considering *when* they were done - only how well they were done. This is
neither science, archaeology or historical investigation - art appreciation at
best. And you have the nerve to accuse me of being "unscholarly" too - the mind
boggles at your arrogance, silliness, naivety and hypocrisy Inger!


My conclusion:
The game is all but over Inger - you have lost. Now you face the unpleasant
prospect of having to organise some sort of 'face-saving' retreat. Unfortunately
for you, your natural hysteria, rudeness, arrogance, pomposity, plus your
insulting, patronising manner, combined with your recent deviousness and
dishonesty, are unlikely to encourage your numerous opponents to be magnanimous -
and it's your own fault.

Being a gentleman, I will try not to crow too cruelly at your impending
humiliation, though I'm afraid others less forgiving and good-natured than myself
may well not be so generous. In the spirit of chivalry, I will also forward some
useful recipes for the up-and-coming 'Hatfest' you will be doubtless soon be
participating in, which may help you not to choke too badly on whatever woolly
contraption surrounds your brain.


Hardly surprising really - there's nothing to discuss, is there?

Cheers
Martin