There is a certain difficulty in trying to write this post, and I think that it is mainly a matter of subjective boundaries. I am trying to criticize a critic of the Rune Stone as an example of how difficult it is to get objective facts on the matter. It is a double edged sword, however - you can't say that critics are bad, and proponents are good, they must be held to equal standards.
I can understand that an advocate of a position may tend to slant information in a particular direction. In fact, any argument requires that evidence be reagarded with differing viewpoints and subject to differing weights. The problem comes when a person malicously goes out of his way to misinform, misinterpet or ignore evidence.
That's where the subjective boundaries come in - at what point does one cross the line from being argumentative to being deceitful. I feel that the work I criticize below steps broadly over that boundary, the caveat being that I am a proponent of the stone, and that my own subjective boundary falls harder on the critics than the proponenets.
I chose the following article for review for several reasons. According to Nilsestuen, Brigitta Wallace is the Smithsonian's favorite expert on the Rune Stone. I was also personally pointed to this piece by a critic who is a University lecturer, and is also noted as being an excellent article by the author of a book on Minnesota History. It seems safe to say that this work is well regarded by academics.
However, a point by point review seems to reveal severe deficiencies in Ms. Wallace's article, far to many in such a short article to be attributed to an occasional mistake. Perhaps she was rushed and simply wrote 'off the cuff' without verifying her sources - a highly unscholarly attitude. The alternative is that she wrote with malice in a deliberate attempt to attack the runestone without regard for objectivity.
Unfortunately, articles of this sort are hailed by academics as proof of that the Runestone is a forgery. This is not to say that there is an academic conspiracy to hide the truth. Given the information that is quickly accessable, and the myth which has grown up around the Runestone that has been somehow proven to be false, it is easy to understand the objections of most critics.
It is only with an in depth examination of ALL the evidence that a complete picture of the Kensington Stone can be formed. Few people take the time to do this, and rely instead on articles such as the one reviewed below which are filled with inacuracies and misinformation.
The follwing is a critique of Brigitta Lindroth Wallace's review of Robert Hall's 1982 book as it appeared in "The Old Northwest" magazine, Vol 10, #4 (Winter 1984-1985). The article runs 15 pages in length not including biblilography. A large amount of the text (about 6 pages) concernts the linguistic elements of Hall's book. I will not comment on that, as my knowledge of the linguistics of the Stone come from Nielsen's articles which postdate this piece.
**********
"The stone lay embedded in the roots of a small poplar tree in such a way that the tree's taproot had been slightly flattened on the side touching the stone, and one of its side roots curled around it"Nowhere does Wallace give an indication of what she means by 'small' - Winchell uses the term in an early report to the museum comittee (Dec 13, 1909), but immediately follows up by giving the diameter at the base of the tree as 5 inches. After Winchell made further investigations this was changed in the final report to 10 inches. Sam Olson variously gave the size as 4 inche, 6 inches, and 10 inches.
I have found no indication as to how flattened the roots were, though it certainly must have been noticable. The tap root may have been considered 'slightly' flattened, as the Minnesota Historical Society reports that "the roots of the tree, especially the largest which spread over the surface f the stone, were flattened by contact with the stone". Wallace does not mention the flattening of this upper root, nor the fact that it grew over the entire upper surface of the stone.
***************
"Winchell's first hand impression while interviewing Kensington residents and Ohman himself was that Ohman had made the inscription. Holand participated in the investigation partly as an interpeter, since Winchell spoke no Scandinavian language..."According to Blegen "It is worth noting, however, that Holand did not accompany Winchell on his trips to Kensington. What one finds in the field book, therefore is authentic Winchell, not a Holand-guided Winchell..."
**********
"The area around the hill was marshy and, at snow melting time, was often under water (H. Moen, pers. comm.), at which time the hill would indeed look like an island."As a Minnesotan, I can reasonably say that during a snow melt, most any large flat area will have a certain amount of water on the surface, the ground being saturated and perhaps still frozen, and outlets being dammed up by snow and ice. This is generally on the level of a half inch to an inch, and easy to walk through with boots.
"The hill on which the stone was found was never called an island by anyone around Kensington, nor has it ever been surrounded by water since the first settler arrived."Similar statements were also given to Landsverk by Arthur Ohman, and by the sons of Nils Flatten - Wallace was certainly aware of the Landsverk interviews as she mentions them later.
**********
"Hall finds no reason to dispute Holand's estimate that the tree was at least forty-two years old and therefore predating the Scandinavian settlement. He prefers to regard as corroborating evidence a statement given in 1961 by Ohman's son Arthur, as opposed to eyewitness reports in 1899."Let's compare this with Hall:
"Arthur Ohman's testimony cncerning the diameter of the tree (8 inches at least, not at ground level but a certain distance above the ground) jibes with what Holand has always asserted (most recently 1962: 48-54) concerning its size and with specialists' estimates of its age. I see no reason to doubt the minimum age of the tree as estimated by the consultants - quoted by Minnesota Historical Society's comission (MHS [1910: 222-24]) - who put it, by comparing it with trees pointed out to them as similar in size and growth, at a minimum of 42 years, ie, dating back at least to 186, thirty-four years before Ohman settled on the farm."It was then, not Holand's estimate that is of concern here, but the estimate of the Minnesota Historical Society. Arthur does not corroborate the age of the tree, but the size of the tree. This size of at least 8 inches in diameter is given not only by Arthur Ohman, but by Edward Ohman, Olaf Ohman, Nils Flatten, Roald Bentson, Samuel Olson and Olaus Olson (who gave this diameter in an 1899 letter to a newspaper and is the earliest account of the tree's size).
***********
"The people who saw the uprooted tree, or rather its stump, estimated its age to have been anywhere between five and twenty-five to thirty years (Svenska America Postern, 16 May 1899; Minnesota Tidende 13 Oct 1899). The area had been settled in 1858"I assume that the "Svenska" article is in regards to the Olaus Olson letter (mentioned above), which is dated on 16 May but not published until 23 May. In this letter Olson estimates the age as 25 - 30 years. She ignores the article, though in the Minneapolis Journal of Feb 22, 1899 which gives the age of the tree as thirty or forty years.
**********
"The area had been settled in 1858."This can only be considered true if you include the whole of Douglas County as "the area." Holmes City, some six miles to the NE of the runestone site was settled in 1858, as well as Alexandria (some 15 miles away) which quickly became the main town in the county. By 1860, the entire population of the county was still less than 200 white people, and the entire population left in 1862 during the Indian uprising. Most of the settlement was along the old trading road from Osakis through Alexandria and Brandon, Alexandria being nearest to the runestone site.
*******
"..it was not the tap root that had been draped around the stone but a smaller, upper one."There is no indication that the upper root was any smaller than the tap root which went down the side. Olaus Olson calls them "two large roots". A drawing by S. Olson, pasted in Winchell's notebook, and published in Blegen, shows the root over the top of the stone as being "the largest root". Both Nils Flaten and Olof Ohman call them the two largest roots, and the size of the root which had grown and flatened (not draped) over the top of the stone was given as being three inches thick by Olof Ohman, Edwared Ohman, Roald Benson, and Samuel Olson.
*******
"The tree fell as soon as Ohman cut off these two roots near the surface, which is a further indication that the tree must have been small."The illustration in Ohman's letter (from which Wallace quotes) shows very clearly that he cut one root off near the surface, and the other (the tap root) beneath the stone. I do not understand why Wallace thinks this is an indication that the tree was small.
*******
" 'The most positive proof that the inscription is not of the ancient origin claimed by its discoverer is the fact that the crevices which form the letters are of lighter color than the other surfaces of the stone' (G. O. Curme in the Chicago Daily Inter Ocean 1 March 1899)"It should be first noted that Wallace is attmpting here to undercut the arguement that geologists did not consider the inscription modern. Curme, however is not a geolgist. Curme however appears to have given a different quote to the newspaper Skandinaven (May 3, 1899):
"Wherever the characters of the inscription have not been disturbed, they are prcisely the same color as the general surface of the stone... But the fact that the upper edge of the incised lines is rough and rounded as a result of disintegration of the stone, while th bottom of the scratched incisions is sharp and clear shows plainly that many years must have elapsed since the inscription was cut"Newspapers at that time were, of course, known to invent stories. We do, however have a brief letter by J. F. Steward who photograped the stone for Curme to send to Copenhagen noted that "The grooves show no more newness than the natural surface of the rock; on the contrary all show age."
*******
" 'I might say, at the outset, that the perfect preservation and the freshness of the angles and all the cutting of the characters... appeared to be an objection to its alleged age... On first examination the impression was made on my mind that it is too lately inscribed. That impression remains' (Winchell, 13 December 1909). Thus the lack of weathering is a good indication of the recent date of the Kensington inscription."Wallace fails to mention the end of the previous paragraph:
"Its siliceous composition has enabled it to withstand the action of the weather, and make it a perfect preserver of the inscription"Nor does Wallace mention that later in the same paragraph from which she quoted Winchell states that
"If it [the inscription] be compared with glacial markings on quartzyte, which must have formed at least seven thousand years ago... there is not much difference in the sharpness and distinctness of the marking or the sharpness of the exposed angles."Wallace also fails to mention that Winchell, one of the most respected geologists of his time, continued his examination of the stone, and that in his final report to the Minnesota Historical Society comittee he shows that the weathering of the inscription "may have requiered... about 500 years."
No geologist who has studied the stone has given any different opinion of the weathering. Wallace has simply taken a quote out of context from Winchell ignoring his stated conclusions regarding the stone.
*******
"A great many of the immigrants to Kensington knew runes as show by layman translations of the Kensington text in press shortly after the finding of the stone (cf. Blegen 1972, pp. 132-134.)"Blegen is not mentioned in Wallace's references, nor did he publish anything in 1972 (he died in 1969). Wallace probably refers to Blegen's 1968 book on the Kensingtone Runestone. On pages 132-134 we find 3 translations, one by Prof. Curme of Evanston, IL, a second by an F. Nosander, published in a Taylor's Falls, MN newspaper (on the Wisconsin border, 35 miles NE of St. Paul), and another by J. K. Nordwall of Sebeka, MN which is 80 miles north of Kensington. The later two translations were sent to the newspapers on March 1, and March 7 respectively, after an article in the Minneapolis Journal dated Feb 22 gave translations by Breda and Curme.
Blegen elsewhere notes that he thinks a Samuel Sieverts may have made a translation of the stone - this is the only Kensington resident that Blegen connects with any attempted translation of the stone. Blegen can at best attempt to say that among pioneers *in Minnesota* there were "not a few persons... who understood runes," and bases this on the fact that some three people in the entire state were able to make a translation of the inscription. Blegen never suggestes that there were any great number of people in Kensington able to read runes.
Wallace also seems to ignore the fact that the stone was on public display in Kesnsington for at least a month, with no one being able to translate it. According to an article in the Minneapolis Journal (Feb 22, 1899)"The inscriptions impressed some of those who as Greek and copies were forwarded to the department of Greek at the University of Minnesota."
The University of Minnesota newspaper (the Ariel) also noted that "The probability of its being cut for the amusement of the finder is certainly not large when we consider how few Scandinavian farmers are learned in Runic characters."
In a talk in 1958, Holand noted that "the three leading men of the town... got into quite a tussle about what kind of writing was on the stone. Two of them were of the opinion that it was Greek" while the other thought it was runic. It is known that a copy was also sent to the Svenska Amerikanska Postern, but not even they could manage a translation, and so they too passed the copy on to the University.
*******
"The actual cutting of the inscription would have taken a couple of hours, at the most; the cutter, or cutters, was or were, well used to hammer and chisel work. (Edgerton, 1955)"This is from a newspaper article, the Minneapolis Star, July 1, 1955, where Jay Edgerton interviewd John Daniels a professional sculptor who examined the Kensington Runestone. To quote more directly:
"Daniels believes that the inscription was put on quickly with sure deft strokes by a person thoroughly familiar with carving runes. The whole job may have taken about two hours. 'I think I could do it myself in two to three hours,' he remarks. 'It seems unlikely to me that a forger, interested in perpetrating a hoax would have worked so rapidly. He would have taken his time and smoothed and polished until the thing looked like the genuine article... The man who carved that inscription was used to a hammer and chisel and he was used to knocking out runes quickly,' Daniels argued. 'No one can say definately that the stone is authentic but I do say that the evidence of the carving is more on the side of authenticity than the other way around.' "As early as 1910, Flom also noticed the professionalism of the carving. "But the knowledge of runes and considerable ability at chiseling in stone were certainly among the accomplishments of the auther of the inscription. Not everybody who knows runes could make them so perfect."
While Daniels is clearly stating that the work is that of a professionally rune carver working quickly, Wallace attempts to make the inscribing of the stone look like simple and easy work.
*******
"Before coming to the United States, Ohman had worked as a stone mason (M. Richardson pers. comm.). In Minnesota he was primarily a construction worker."Wallace does not tell us who M. Richardson is or on what basis he or she is able to make such a statement about Ohman's past. I have not seen that name in any of my researches on Ohman. Regardless, Wallace seems here to infer that Ohman may have worked as a stone mason after his arrrival in the United States in 1879.
"Mr. Ohman is a carpenter. No one was found who knew of his working as a stone mason, though several were asked" (Winchell, MHS report)
"My father could not have possibly have carved the inscription. He was never more than a fair stonemason. He did not even own stonemason's chisels until considerably after 1898." (Arthur Ohman, signed statement in Landesverk)
"Ohman was not a stonemason. We never saw him do that kind of work. He did not even own stonemason's chisels until after the year 1898... Ohman could not possibly have carved the inscription." (Olaus Flaten and Johns Flaten, signed statement in Landesverk)There are numerous other statements on record which show that Ohman was not a stonemason but a rough carpenter, though Wallace may not have know of these. However, she does quote elsewhere from the above sources.
**********
The point in all this being that it is very difficult for the casual reader to find the truth in the Runestone controversy. If one is to make a study of the Kensington Stone, it seems almost essential to examine the source material, and to make judgements based mainly on that.
Get your own Free Home Page