Re: SHM stats for January



Andrew Chaplin <ab.chaplin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43e546ff$0$52636$dbd43001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Paul J Gans wrote: ds3bf2$cl2$10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

Nor can we class the Kensington Rune Stone stuff as "medieval
history", though we can certainly journey over to sci.archaeology
and argue it.

---- Paul J. Gans

The KRS is medieval speculation with a lot of
(misunderstood and misinterpreted) history,
and for some with a social function.
That is shm, isn't it?

I think the KRS or, more properly, historians' views of it is an
important mediaeval historiography subject and quite on-topic,
regardless of my views of the whole mess. (Of course, my views of it
count for very little, as it's not my period and not my field, being a
modernist and all.)

But medieval historians essentially universally reject the KRS
as an authentic item.

Historically, it has been discussed to death and beyond in
sci.archaeology. Every so often it splashes over into SHM
much as a wrestling match in an over full bathtub *will*
make waves.

Generally, nobody here thinks much of the KRS and I think that
the majority are quite happy when the water drains a bit and
the KRS goes back to sci.arch.

I'm one of those.

------ Paul J. Gans

.