Factual Errors in Chap. 29 of Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga Regarding the Kensington Stone.

"It was around this time, 1879, that a Swedish emigrant named Olof Ohman, a stonemason from Forsa, Halsingland, arrived in Minnesota"

1. There is no record of Ohman having ever been employed as a stonemason, he did not own the equipment to cut stone until considerably after the runestone was found and even then his skill was not ever more than fair <Landesverk: p65 (signed statement of Ohman's son, Arthur)> and then used, according to neighbors, for only rough work, such as cutting blasting holes in rocks <Douglas Co. Historical Society, interviews with residents conducted in August, 1981 by Gordon Duenow>.

The RUMOR that Ohman was a stonemason was investigated by Dr. Newton Winchell in 1909-10 and according to him "there seems to be no truth nor basis for this rumor, other than the natural desire to explain a puzzle. It may have been suggested by some one, asked by another whether true or not, intimated by another and affirmed by the fourth. Once stated as fact, it was hence additional evidence". <Minnesota Historical Society (MHS): 20>

Ohman did sometimes find employ as a rough carpenter, and if he had had a more skilled craft would undoubtedly have used it to support his family.

"according to affidavits he signed, in November 1898, while digging out stumps..."

2. The affidavits gave an (apparently incorrect) finding date of August, 1898 <Blegen: 138>.

"It was exhibited at a local bank in Alexandria and newspaper articles publishing translations of the text appeared in local papers. A transcription said to have been made by Ohman was send to Professor Olaf Breda.."

3. The stone was exhibited in Kensington <Blegen: 9>.

4. Translations appeared in the Svenska Amerikanska Posten (a Minneapolis paper) on Mar 14, 1899 and Mar 28, 1899 and Minneapolis Journal (Feb. 24, 1899). Neither of these were local papers to the Alexandria area <Blegen: 20-21, 129-30, 132-4> Blegen also specificly notes lack of interest by local paper, the Alexandria Post News <p42>.

5. The author(s) makes it appear the translations appeared before the letter was sent to Breda, however the translations were made after Breda's translation was published on Feb. 22, 1899.

6. In a letter to Winchell (Mar 12, 1910) J. P. Hedberg says he made the copy of the runestone that ended up in Breda's hands <Blegen: 169>. There is no evidence connecting Ohman to the copy received by Breda.

7. The copy was sent to S Turnblad of the Svenska Amerikanska Posten, who in turn sent it on to Breda <Blegen: 19>.

8. Breda's first name was Olaus, not Olof.

"Breda concluded it was modern, because it contained numbers which were not proper runic numbers.

9. Breda stated that "I was unable to decipher the numerals because I was unfamiliar with the runic 'primstav' calendars" <Smyra, 1910, p 70, trans. Hamlet Peterson>. Neither in this article, nor in a letter written to Warren Upham Mar 7, 1910 <Blegen:165>, nor in any newspaper accounts that I have seen does Breda make reference to the numerals being the reason for his conclusion.

"This might have been the end of the matter had it not been for a young Norwegian-born amateur historian named Hjalmar Holand who became interested in it while traveling through Minnesota giving lectures on Norwegian History"

10. Holand was, according to Blegen, working on his Master's thesis in 1898 - hardly an amateur <Blegen: 49>.

11. Holand was not traveling through giving lectures, he was researching a book on Norwegian immigration, which was published in 1908 <Blegen: 48, 52>.

"Holand kept the stone, (even carving his initials into it)"

12. Minor point, but Holand only carved one letter, an 'H', which he later claimed was for purposes of checking the weathering of the stone <Holand, 1959: 12>.

"Holand's vigorous campaigning let the Minnesota Historical Society to look further into the matter, and in late 1909 and early 1910 they sent State Geologist Newton H. Winchell to investigate... His written report was heavily influenced by Holand, who was hired by Winchell to translate, because Ohman did not speak English.

13. The author(s) imply that Holand interpreted in direct conversations between Ohman and Winchell, but Blegen states specifically "It is worth noting, however, that Holand did not accompany Winchell on his trips to Kensington. <p 142>"

14. Blegen notes that Winchell "relied heavily on Holand for analysis of the language of the inscription both in the main text and in attempts to refute linguistic criticisms" <p 70>, not in the report as a whole. The author(s) may have had in mind Wahlgren's assertions about Holand's influence (which he based primarily on a lengthy letter from Holand to Winchell (May 19, 1910) in which numerous suggestions were made for revisions in a draft copy of the MHS report), and so may be excused on this point.

I checked the suggested revisions in this letter against the final draft, finding the place of 21 of Holand's suggestions. Winchell ignored 2/3 (14) of these suggestions totally, partially used two, made one correction to a quote by Holand, and of the remaining 4, two dealt specifically with Holand's rebuttal of Flom. Holand had virtually no influence over the non-linguistic portions of the report.

15. The Minnesota Historical Society report states that Ohman "does not speak English readily, but seems to understand English when he hears it spoken in common conversation" <MHS: 5>, not that Ohman could not speak English. Blegen also remarks several times about Ohman's ability to speak English

"The report... established that he [Ohman] knew runic writing and had an interest in history"

16. According to the report, Ohman only said that "Every school boy, and every Swede and Norwegian, knows something about runes, but not so as to use them." <MHS: 22> This is hardly a claim to know the futhark, let alone runic writing.

17. There is nothing in the report which suggests that Ohman had an interest in history.

"Winchell concluded that the inscription might be genuine but that the lack of patina on the runes on the otherwise well-patinated stone indicated that the runes were recent"

18. Winchell makes no statement about the patina, other than to note that compared to the interior the surface of the stone is lighter and of a "mellow" color. He notes this of the whole surface of the stone, and does not say the surface of the inscribed area is different in any way except to note that parts of it had been scraped by an iron nail. <MHS: 13-17>

A number of other people, however, did make note that the inscription was as weathered as other parts of the stone. For instance J.F. Steward who in 1899 photographed the stone for Curme's investigation noted "The grooves show no more newness than the natural surface of the rock; on the contrary all show age." <Blegen: 136> and Curme, "wherever the characters of the inscription have not been disturbed, they have precisely the same color as the general surface of the stone." <Skandinavian, Chicago, May 3, 1898 (see Holand, 1959: 12).

19. Winchell's conclusion as to the age of the inscription was that it was roughly 500 years old, not of recent date <MHS: 17>.

20. The conclusion of the committee report, written by Winchell, was favorable, the only difficulty being in the linguistic aspects of the stone, not the physical aspects <MHS: 48>.

"The governors of the Minnesota Historical Society concluded that the inscription was in all probability a fake and that Ohman was probably the perpetrator"

21. On May 9, 1910 the executive committee voted to reserve final judgment on the runestone <Blegen: 91, MHS: 48>. Blegen makes no further reference to the MHS resolving the issue pro or con. The Historical Society did, in 1915 publish the favorable committee report, both in its official records and as a separate publication.. It may, in fact, be true that the MHS did at some point conclude the inscription was a fake, but did not do so at this time implied by the author(s).

"Holand kept the stone until he parted with it for $4000 paid by the Alexandria Chamber of Commerce"

22. Although the runestone was to be entrusted to the Chamber of Commerce, the stone was purchased by an independent group of 10 businessmen from Alexandria <Park Region Echo (Alexandria, MN), Oct. 9, 1951, p 1, reporting on a deposition given by Holand regarding the Kensington Runestone>.

23. The amount paid was $2500, not $4000 <ibid.>.

"On the contrary, contemporary descriptions noted that the tree was judged to be only five to twelve years old and that the root around it was small (Minneapolis Tidende, 3 October 1911; letter from Cleve Van Dyke, 19 April 1910, Minnesota Historical Society"

24. The only truly contemporary description in a letter from Olaus Olson to the Svenska Amerikanska Posted dated May 16 1899 (shortly after he examined the stone), gives an age for the tree of 25 to 30 years. All other descriptions came at least 8 years later <Blegen: 134-5>.

25. The Olson letter describes the root around the stone as large <ibid.>.

26. The Van Dyke letter describes the tree as 12 years old, and describes the root around the stone as smaller than the large tap root down the side, not as being small <Blegen: 171>.

27. The MHS archives include a very comprehensive set of translations of articles regarding the runestone from the Minneapolis Tidende, but I have not seen such an article from 3 Oct. There is however an article by Juul Dieserud which is dated 13 Oct. (possibly a translator error) which notes that a witness (Van Dyke?) gave the thickness of the tree as five inches, and the author of the article (not the witness) concludes that the tree may have only been 10 or 12 years old <Minnesota Historical Society achieves, translation by PP Iverslie>

"The continuing controversy soon led to the appearance of a critical review (Bronsted 1954), published by the Smithsonian, and two books (Moltke 1953, Wahlgren 1958)"

28. Moltke wrote no book on the Kensington Runestone, though an article by Moltke was published in the February 1953 issue of Scandinavian Studies.

"Dalecarlia, a community where runes were still being used in the 1920s (Boethius 1906)"

29. The citation is from 1906, and cannot reflect the use of runes in the 1920s.

"Ohman... had been seen carving runes on sticks during his early years in Minnesota"

30. There is no first hand report of this - one second hand report gives one instance of him carving runes on a stick <"The Case of the Gran Tapes" Minnesota History, Winter, 1976>. Winchell investigated one other reported case of Ohman writing runes on a board, and found that it was not Ohman, but Hans Voigt who made the runes in that instance <MHS: 23>

"Among the articles found pasted into Ohman's scrapbook, now in the Minnesota Historical Society..."

31. The scrapbook was returned to the Ohman family after some of the articles were microfilmed. It is not in the Minnesota Historical Society.

"According to a neighbor, Jonas P. Gran, the runic inscription was planned long in advance of its finding..."

32. The person being referred to here is John P. Gran, though Jonas was his nickname <Minnesota History, Winter, 1976, >.

33. John Gran did not say anything about the planning of the inscription. <ibid.>

"In tape recordings... Gran said the inscription had been composed by Ohman and his friend, Sven Fogelblad... and that Ohman and Gran did the actual chiseling. "

34. John Gran never made any tape recordings regarding the Runestone. In 1967, Walter Gran, his son made a recording about the stone, and a conversation he had with his father in the late 1920s. According to Walter, there was only this single conversation about the stone - it was never brought up later. <ibid.>

35. From the transcripts of the Gran tapes: "Nephew: Now did your father ever talk about a schoolteacher here by the name of Sven Fogelblad? Walter: No" <ibid., p 154> It is an error to quote John Gran as saying Fogelblad had any influence on the stone.

36. John Gran never talked about whom did the chiseling. <ibid.>

"Ohman and Gran buried the stone under the roots of a small ash..."

Bibliography

Books referenced in the article:

Blegen, Theodore, The Kensington Runestone: New Light on and Old Riddle, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, 1968

Holand, Hjalmar R, A Holy Mission to Minnesota 800 Years Ago, Alexandria, MN Echo Press, 1959.

Landsverk, Ole, The Kensington Runestone: A Reappraisal of the Circumstances under which the Stone was Discovered, Glendale, CA, Church Press, 1961.

Minnesota Historical Society, The Kensington Runestone Preliminary Report, Minnesota Historical Society Collections, vol. 15, 1915 (offset printing of article by Volkszeitung Co)