---
MZ: Wallace comments do not rebut my original statement that Winchell makes
no comments about the patina in the report, her comments dealing only with
the apparent freshness of the edges and angles. Strikingly on page 9 of
her
rebuttal Wallace does mention that Winchell "then multiplies by 100 the
stages in the patination of the stone". I assume that Winchell could only
do this if there was, indeed, a patina to work from.
In short there is no basis for the statement that "Winchell concluded that
the inscription might be genuine but that the lack of patina on the runes
on
the otherwise well-patinated stone indicates that the runes were recent".
I
would expect that this will be clarified if there is a 3rd edition of the
book.
-----
In regard to Wallace's other statements:
BW:" Winchell report, December 13, 1909: 'I might say, at the outset, that
the perfect preservation and the freshness of the angles and all the
cutting
of the characters that constitute the record on this stone appeared to be
an
objection to its alleged age' (Winchell report December 13, 1909)"
MZ: I would like to present the same statement in the more complete context
from the report:
Winchell describes the composition (noting in particular the "numerous
rounded grains of quartz" and general appearance of the stone continuing
"Its silicious composition has enabled it to withstand the action of the
weather, and to make it a perfect preserver of the inscription.
I might say, at the outset, that the perfect preservation and the freshness
of the angles and all the cutting of the characters that constitute the
record on this stone appeared to be an objection to its alleged age. On
first examination the impression was made on my mind that it was too lately
inscribed. That impression remains, but I have to admit that I have not
any
experience with the duration of such cutting on such a stone. According to
the date on its face the inscription was made 547 years ago. If it is
compared with the glacial markings on quartzyte, which must have been
formed
at least seven thousand years ago, preserved by the same drift covering,
there is not much difference in the sharpness and distinctness of the
markings, or the sharpness of the exposed angles. Quartz, which is the
chief ingredient of the stone, and which is almost the sole ingredient in
quartzyte seems to be practically indestructible in the open air. It
becomes polished by wind-driven dust particles, but it does not decay.
When
protected from the wind the ground and surface waters have but little
effect
on it, except in the lapse of long geological ages."
There is little doubt from the above that Winchell was not suggesting that
the inscription was of recent manufacture, but was remarking on the
geologic
basis for why the inscription might appear to be fresh. However, as
Winchell remarks, the glacial scratches which are far more ancient then a
547 year old inscription also show a similar sharpness.
Wallace has here simply taken a statement out of context and attempted to
create an unsupported conclusion from it. Lest there still be some doubt
that he believed in the authenticity of the stone, let us look to a written
statement by Winchell dated 2 days after the above report.
"I have personally made a topographical examination of the place where the
Kensington stone was found, and of the region northward to Pelican Lake
where the skerries are located to which the inscription refers, and I am
convinced from the geological conditions,and the physical changes that the
region has experienced probably in the last five hundred years that the
said
stone is not a modern forgery, and must be accepted as a genuine record of
an exploration in Minnesota at the date stated in the inscription. N. H.
Winchell"
-----
BW:" 'The first impression derived from the inscription is that it is of
recent date, and not 548 years old. The edges and angles of the chiseling
are sharp, and show no apparent alteration by weathering' (Winchell, April,
1910 report)"
MZ: Again, let us look at this in context:
"The weathered surface is somewhat lighter, and yet it is firm and wholly
intact. It is evident that the surface color has been acquired since the
Glacial period, and therefore that some 7,000 or 8,000 years may have
elapsed since its face was first exposed to the elements. The reverse of
the
inscribed side is more altered by weathering and carries evident older
glacial striations.
The first impression derived from the inscription is that it is of recent
date, and not 548 years old. The edges and angles of the chiseling are
sharp, and show no apparent alteration by weathering. The powder of the
stone when crushed is nearly white. None of this powder is preserved in the
runes on the face of the stone, and it is necessary therefore to allow it
some years of age, but it is quite impossible to draw a decisive inference
of the age of the inscription from that alone. The edge of the stone
differs
in this respect from the face, since most of the rune letters show the
white
powder formed by crushing the stone. The difference was said to be due to
the fact that the runes on the edge had been filled with mud and had been
cleaned out by scraping them with an iron nail. Indeed, in the runes in
some
places on the edge can be seen with a pocked magnifier small quantities of
fresh metallic iron evidently derived from that process. "
It seems evident that the statement in question is given as part of a
general description of the appearance of the runestone, and it does not put
forward as any conclusion about the age of the stone. It is difficult to
discern, once put in proper context, how this statement could be read as
anything but an indication how the stone might look to an individual prior
to an in depth examination.
It should be noted that Winchell concludes the section on weathering with
remarks similar to those given in the Dec 13th statement:
"The composition of the stone makes it one of the most durable in nature,
equaling granite, and almost equaling the dense quartzyte of the pipestone
quarry in the southwestern part of Minnesota. On the surface of this
quartzyte, even where exposed to the weather since they were formed, the
fine glacial scratches and polishing are well preserved, and when covered
by
drift clay, they seem not to have changed at all."
And lest there still be any doubt of Winchell's stance on the runestone,
the
following from a letter to Holand dated Aug 10, 1911:
"So with the runestone, as it appears to me, and as it appeared to me when
I
first gave attention to it, and as I stated in my first paper concerting it
- there are geological (physical) aspects of the question which absolutely
require that the stone's story be correct. These are fundamental, and
cannot be set aside by verbal technicalities such as are, to this date,
brought up to disprove it. They stand impregnable while a light combat
rages about them among the scouts. When the line of battle reaches these
fundamental truths they will assert their power. No one has, at yet,
attacked these important bulwarks of the rune stone. They are discussed in
the report of the Museum committee of the Minnesota Historical Society."
-----
BW: See also Blegen 1968: 70 "Winchell was neither a historian nor a
linguist. When he drafted the museum committee report... he spoke as an
expert geologist in dealing with the stone and its weathering"
MZ: As was noted above, Winchell was also an archaeologist as well as a
geologist, and as such would have some acquaintance with history, but I
agree with the statement in general. Winchell was an expert in geology,
and
as such his expressed conclusions in that area must be respected.
-----
BW:
" 'The most positive proof that the inscription is not of the ancient
origin claimed by its discoverers is the fact that the crevices which form
the letters are of lighter color than the outer surface of the stone; this
could hardly be the case if the stone had been buried for 600 years...'
(Curme in "The Daily Inter Ocean," March 1, 1899)."
MZ: To the extent of my knowledge this is the only objection given to the
stone based on a lack of patina. It should be noted that the problem area
is limited to the crevices, while both Winchell and Wolter note the side of
the stone was also "dressed by a rough bush-hammering". There is no
objection made that there was a lack of patina on this side of the stone,
which would suggest that the area was patinaed.
That there would be no patina in the crevices can be explained by the
admission by several residents of Kensington that the inscription had been
scraped out to make it clearer. This is confirmed by Winchell
"...the
runes
on the edge had been filled with mud and had been cleaned out by scraping
them with an iron nail. Indeed, in the runes in some places on the edge can
be seen with a pocked magnifier small quantities of fresh metallic iron
evidently derived from that process." <1910 report - see above>
and by
Wolter "The inscription shows some powder within, which is evidence of
retooling [such as by scraping the incision with a nail] done at some point
later than the original incision. The wider area near the top of the
inscribed grooves generally do not show this retooling, having not been
scraped and so evidence the original incision. Also on the split side, the
left portion of the inscription does not appear to be heavily retooled."
The is also reflected in a more complete excerpt from the "Skandinavian"
article noted in my original statement. [as a caveat, I do not have the
original of either the Skandinavian article, nor the Daily Inter Ocean
article noted by Ms. Wallace, context might therefore give added or
different meaning]:
"Wherever the characters of the inscription have not been disturbed, they
have precisely the same color as the general surface of the stone. But, as
Professor Curme pointed out, it can be plainly seen, that most of the
letters have been scratched over with a sharp instrument after the stone
was
unearthed.
The letters of the inscription were evidently carved with a sharp
instrument, for they are clear cut and distinct in outline. But the fact
that the upper edge of the incised lines is rough and rounded as a result
of
the disintegration of the stone, while the bottom of the scratched
incisions
is sharp and clear shows plainly that many years must have elapsed since
the
inscription was cut.
In other words, the external appearance of the Kensington rune stone so far
from speaking against it, is such that the inscription may well be six
hundred years old." (see Holand 1969:129)
I think Holand may have made an error in the dating of the above article.
May 3 would have been a couple months after the periord of discussion in
the
newspapers, and Blegen's bibliography does not show an article from the
Skandinavian on that date (though it does show Mar 1 and Mar 10 articles).
At any rate these articles conflict with each other - if the Skandinavian
article came out later than Inter-Ocean article (Mar 3??) then his might
indicate an updated and more accurate investigation of the scratched out
area. The Skandinavian point of view is also reinforced by Wolter's
investigation which noted that "The wider area near the top of the
inscribed
grooves generally do not show this retooling" which corresponds exactly
with
the comments made in the Skandinavian statement about the weathered
appearance of the "upper edge of the incised line."
Affidavits given by Ohman and other residents of the Kensington area in
1909
also attest to the weathered appearance of the inscription:
"...the inscription presented a weathered appearance, which to me appeared
just as old as the untouched parts of the stone." - Olof Ohman
"The inscription presented a very ancient and weathered appearance." -Nils
Flaten
"The inscription as seen by us presented an ancient and weathered
appearance, similar to the uninscribed parts of the stone" - Roald Bentson
and Samuel Olson (see Blegen p 138-140)
The runestone certainly would not have such an appearance if the patina
were
missing from the inscribed portions.
Holand noted that "...the main part of the inscription presents the same
ancient, mellow and weathered appearance as the untouched face of the
stone"
(Holand, "First Authoritative Investigation of 'Oldest Native Document in
America" Journal of American History IV, 2nd Quarter, 1910, p 179.)
In the same article, Holand also quotes geologist Warren Upham:
"When we
compare the excellent preservation of the glacial scratches shown on the
back of the stone, which were made several thousand years ago, with the
mellow, time-worn appearance of the face of the inscription, the conclusion
is inevitable that this inscription must have been carved many hundred
years
ago" (ibid: 180)
Dr. Knut Hoeg also noted that "The stone must have been buried in the
ground
for a long time before the area was cultivated: its weather beaten
appearance, indistinct runes..." (Hoeg, "The Kensington and Elbow Lake
Stones", Symra, 1910, trans by Mrs. David Nelson. No page numbers are
listed
in the translation proper, but the article in length is noted to be on pp
178-189)
For completeness sake, I also have a copy of a typed letter from a C M Moss
to a professor Larson (though "[Lawrence]" is hand written next to it and a
hand written date of "[2, 1913]" listed in the upper right hand corner.
Unfortunately I am not sure who exactly these people are, though this was
received from the archives at the University of Illinois. In the letter
Moss
notes
"I have seen the stone and carefully examined it. I know nothing
about runes, but I have a definite conviction that the stone is a very old
one. Its appearance indicates that. No stone of its kind was ever worn
into
its present day shape by twenty or fifty or a hundred years of exposure."
Finally the following from Harold Langland in a letter to the editor to an
undetermined newspaper, possibly the Minneapolis Tribune, dated Feb 24,
1950. This is a response to an article by Prof Brogger originally
published
in Dagbladet (Oslo) Dec 15, 1949 and apparently reprinted in the
Minneapolis
paper:
"Although Prof. Brogger cites several authorities to the effect the stone
is
of recent origin, it is difficult for me, at least, to believe this in
light
of several facts, some of which I have learned from close observation and
study. The stone was sent to me from Alexandria in 1929 by Constant Larson
and Morris Franzen of that city, my firm having contracted to make a metal
display stand and case for the stone. For two months the stone lay at my
elbow every day. Having no previous knowledge of the stone, I was inclined
to the idea that very little credence could be attached to its being
centuries old. Nevertheless, with great care I studied the appearance of
the
surface of the stone and the interior surfaces of the runic letters.
Having had an engineer's scientific training, including chemistry and
physics, and considerable experience on the prairies and lakes of
Minnesota,
I am not without knowledge of the weathering of stone surfaces. I observed
the perfectly clear evidence of newly scratched marks on the surface of the
stone; some fo these scratches were on the surface and some were down in
the
runic groves. They were very obvious, as the stone's outer surface is many
shades darker than the interior. These scratches were recently made, that
is
within a much shorter time than the runes themselves.
The inner surfaces of the runes were as dark and weathered as the stone's
exterior surface; it is beyond the bounds of sound reasoning to believe
that
those characters could have been recent cut and then have weathered down to
the color of the stones exterior surface within a few years.
The stone was found in 1898, and lay in Ohman's yard with most of the
characters face down for six or seven years, and since 1908 has been
protected from weathering. This observation must be satisfactorily
explained
before the stone's fraudulent origin can be sustained. "
-----
BW: " 'That an inscription which for 500 years should be in such an
excellent state of preservation... was in itself suspicious' (O J Breda,
letter to W Upham, Mar 7, 1910)"
MZ: Ms Wallace inadvertently clipped part of the quotation. It should read
"Than an inscription which for 500 years had been exposed to the severe
climate of Minnesota, should be in such an excellent state of
preservation...was in itself suspicious." (see Blegen: 165)
As Winchell notes, the stone could not have been exposed to the weather for
more than about 30 years, based on the calcite deterioration. If 500 years
old it would have had to have been buried for the vast majority of that
time
and not exposed to the climate for that period.
Breda was not a geologist, nor had he "made a special study in Runic
inscriptions" (ibid), and therefore his conclusions do not carry the weight
of authority. Winchell, as noted above, does present a thorough
examination
of the preservation of the runes.
Breda himself seems to believe that the inscription was must have been made
at a somewhat earlier time, suggesting in the same letter that it may have
been done by a Swedish soldier moving through the area prior to its
settlement. He notes specifically that "If buried in the ground, say for
30-40 years, the characters would acquire from the action of the soil and
moisture an appearance of old age." I dare say that he would not make such
a statement if such an appearance had not presented itself to him during
his
examination of the inscription.
-----
BW: "Steward's statement is unreliable as he is wrong with regard to such
elementary aspects of the stone as its size and tools used for the
inscription:
'The stone is a trap boulder, split by natural causes... They
[the characters] are cut as with a 'diamond pointed' tool. The grooves
show
no more newness than the natural surfaces of the rock; on the contrary all
show age... the stone may have been cut..early in this century...The size
of
the stone is about 75x20x36 c.m.' (29 1.2" by 8" by 14 1/4") 'and weights
about 100 pounds' (J.F. Steward letter to Professor Ludvig F.A. Wimmer
[linguist and runolgist at the University of Copenhagen], Oct 15, 1899)."
MZ: Lets take a look at the suspicious parts:
J.S: 'The stone is a trap boulder...'
"The stone is a dense, and firm graywacke, having some outward resemblance
to basaltic trap rock... Its color also adds to the semblance of trap..."
(Winchell, Dec 13, 1909 report)
"It is of graywacke, but its shape and dark color suggest that it is trap"
(Winchell, MHS report, 1910)
J.S.: '...split by natural causes...'
"If the engraved face of this stone was separated from its neighbor since
the Glacial age, as seems certain..." (Winchell, MHS report)
'It is greywacke, of dark color, evidently rifted from some large boulder
fo
glacial drift, which forms the surface of all the region" (Warren Upham,
"Records of the Past" Vol Ix, Part I, Jan - Feb, 1910, p 4)
J.S: 'They [the characters] are cut as with a 'diamond pointed' tool...'
I am not certain why Ms Wallace makes a point of this. Rock chisels and
cold
chisels tend to be diamond pointed, that is beveled in from either side.
Whalgren appears to have tried to make something of this, but "Whalgren,
'Kensington Stone', 68, reported that the runic grooves, according to
Steward 'were cut with a 'diamond pointed' tool.' But the word 'as' in
Steward's statement conveys a different meaning" .
In a letter to Theodore Blegen regarding the above, Whalgren admits that "I
was astonished to find that I had [misunderstood and] misquoted Steward.
Should have put in the whole sentence, if not the whole letter, and I might
have caught on before printing!" (Whalgren to Blegen, Dec 21, 1968,
University of Minnesota, Blegen papers. Note: brackets [] are in the
original letter).
A stonemason from Germany also weighed in on the subject: "To carve runes
into a hard stone you can't use an edge-chisel. You must have a pointed
chisel, which is like a pyramid" (letter, Wilhelm Schoder and Arthur
Schroeder (stone mason) to Tanquist, Aug 26, 1981 - letter on file
Alexandria Runestone Museum)
JS: 'The grooves show no more newness than the natural surfaces of the
rock;
on the contrary all show age...'
Which is the point of contention
JS: 'the stone may have been cut..early in this century...'
The complete comment is:
"The stone may have been cut by some smart Scandinavian traveler, as one
connected with the Fur Companies, early in this century, in an effort to
establish the claims of the Norsemen to have been first to explore this
country[.] It is possible, of course that, as early as the date found on
the
stone, the Norsemen did make efforts in the direction of voyages of
discovery..."
This is similar in intent to Hotchkiss.
"I have carefully examined the various phases of weathering on the
Kensington Stone, and... I am persuaded that the inscription cannot have
been made in recent years. It must have been made at least fifty to a
hundred years ago and perhaps earlier."
JS: 'The size of the stone is about 75x20x36 c.m.' (29 1.2" by 8" by 14
1/4")'
Blegen gives the size of the stone as "About 2 1/2 feet high [30"], 3 to 6
inches thick, and 15 inches wide" and in a footnote states also
that "the irregularity of the stone accounts for some variations in
measurement. The MHS museum submitted a sketch listing the maximum
dimensions as 29 1/2 by 14 5/8 by 5 1/2 inches. Brigitta L. Wallace gave
them as 29 1/2 by 15 1/2 by 6 inches" . Steward is off by 2 inches on
one measurement on what appears to be the most irregular side of the stone,
and Steward is actually closer to the MHS measurement than Wallace in
determination of the width of the stone.
JS: '...and weighs about 100 pounds'
This appears to be the only real error - Blegen gives the weight at 202
lbs,
and Winchell gives the weight as 230 lbs. But "Whalgren suggested Steward
may have meant kilograms..." .
If we assume that this is simply a typo we find that 100 kg = 220 lbs,
which
lies between the noted weights. As a curious aside, a fellow from Vienna
called me just a few days ago inquiring after the stone, when I mentioned
that it weighed 202 lbs, his immediate response was "oh, about 100 kilos".
Outside of the kilogram typo, I see no justification in saying that Steward
was wrong in any of the aspects mentioned, rather his points are confirmed
by other examinations. I have seen it noted, but cannot confirm, that
Steward was an amateur geologist as well as a photographer - as such he
might well be used to makeing accurate descriptions of geologic items.
I would like to note again that the edge of the stone, according to both
Wolter and Winchell, was dressed at the same time as the inscription made.
Photographs made by Steward show no evidence that this area of the stone
was
of any different coloration than the patinaed ares. For that matter, no
photo that I have seen has shown such a change in coloration. I am no
photographic expert, however, and would suggest that if there is still some
doubt in the matter, an examination by such an expert would be in order.
-----
The 2nd edition of "Vikings, The North Atlantic Saga" (2nd ed.) still
states
that "Winchell concluded that the inscription might be genuine but that the
lack of patina on the runes on the otherwise well-patinated stone indicated
the runes were recent."
This statement is simply false. The only statement Winchell makes about the
patina, is that "The weathered surface is somewhat lighter..." (as opposed
to the dark grey interior of the stone) and, "The general "mellow" color of
the stone, is also to be noted. This is the first apparent effect of
weathering".
At no point does he note that any particular area of the stone is not
patinaed, but does make note that the side of the stone (which we therefore
assume would have the same "mellow" color), was rough dressed at the same
time as the inscription, and so it cannot be concluded that there was no
patination of the inscription.
+++++
19. Winchell's conclusion as to the age of the inscription was that it was
roughly 500 years old, not of recent date
MZ: Again, Ms Wallace makes no attempt to rebut this statement. Winchell's
conclusion is indeed that the runes are about 500 years old (from the time
of the report), not "of recent date" as the book contends. I must once
more
ask for an accurate revision of any further editions of the book on this
point.
-----
In regards to Wallace's statement on this point, I wish to break it down
into two sections.
BW: This is what the report says: "If the slab was separated from its
neighbor 548 years ago, it must have been with the face down during most of
that period... If it was so separated fifteen or thirty years ago it may
have lain with its face side up and probably would show no more weathering
than it now evinces..."
MZ: We must immediately note that Winchell here is talking about the
weathering of the calcite, not of the runes as is shown by the presenting
the complete section form which this was clipped:
"It is plain that the calcite deposit the covers a part of it was formed in
a joint-opening before the stone was separated from its neighbor, and that
it has had approximately as long direct exposure to the elements as the
rest
of that surface. The well preserved condition of this calcite, as a whole,
not less than the non-glaciation of the face of the stone, indicates a
period of exposure less than 7,000 or 8,000 years. Marble slabs in
graveyards in New England are more deeply disintegrated than this calcite,
when they stand above the surface of the ground.
The immediate surface of the calcite, especially the edges formed by
cutting
the runes, is smoothed by recent friction of some kind, much more than the
surface of the graywacke; and this is attributable to wearing away when the
stone served as a stepping-stone at the granary.
If the engraved face of this stone was separated from its neighbor since
the
Glacial age, as seems certain, it must have been in some way protected from
the action of the elements; and consequently this calcite is comparable
with
the white, fine grained limestone boulders and pebbles that are common in
the body of the drift in that part of the state. Such boulders when freshly
taken from the till in deep excavations are not rotted, but are fresh and
firm and smooth as marbles, and show distinctly the fine glacial scratches
which they received during the Ice age, which ended about 7,000 or 8,000
years ago. When, however they are found exposed at the surface of the
ground, they have lost this smoothness and all the glacial marking, and
their surfaces afford a fine white powder of natural disintegration. As
there is nothing on this calcite (which is also the principal ingredient of
the limestone boulders), it is evident that either the calcite has but
recently been exposed or has been protected from the weather. If the slab
was separated from its neighbor 548 years ago, it must have lain with its
face side down during the most of that period, and if separated earlier it
must have been covered with drift clay. If it was separated fifteen or
thirty years ago, it may have lain with its face side up and probably would
show no more weathering than it now evinces. In short, there is no possible
natural way to preserve the calcite scale from general disintegration for
548 years except to bury it beneath the surface. If it were not thus buried
and still is intact, it must have been exposed and the inscription must
have
been made less than a hundred years ago, and probably less than thirty
years
ago."
The purpose of the above is not to date the time of the inscription but to
set a window of time for which the stone must have be subjected to
atmospheric weathering, that is 15-30 years. Winchell could then conclude
that the stone must have been buried for most of its existence (since
cleaved from a larger boulder), and estimated weathering based on that
fact.
Wallace has (again) clipped a few lines out of context presenting them as
if
they were Winchell's conclusion rather than a discussion of the
deterioration of the calcite. She then skips 2 1/2 paragraphs and
continues:
-----
BW: "Professor W. O. Hotchkiss, a state geologist of Wisconsin, estimated
that the time since the runes were inscribed is 'at least 50 to 100 years'"
(Winchell then multiplies by 100 the stages in the patination of the stone,
deriving the 100 figure from the maximum age assigned by Hotchkiss).
MZ: This is blatantly false. Compare it to the actual report:
"There are six stages of the weathering of graywacke exhibited by the
stone,
and they may be arranged approximately in a scale as follows:
1. A fresh break or cut --- 0
2. Break or cut shown by the runes of the face --- 5
3. Edge face, which has not been engraved, but was apparently dressed by a
rough bush-hammering --- 5
4. The inscribed face of the stone --- 10
5. The finely glaciated and polished back side and the non-hammered portion
of the edge --- 80
6. The coarse gouging and the general beveling and deepest weathering of
the
back side --- 250 or 500
These figures are but rough estimates and are intended to express the grand
epochs of time through which the stone has passed since it started from the
solid rock of which it formed a part prior to the Glacial period; and to a
certain degree they are subject to the errors of the personal equation of
the person who gives them. Prof. W O Hotchkiss, state geologist of
Wisconsin, estimated that the time since the runes were inscribed is "at
least 50 to 100 years." If the figures in the forgoing series be all
multiplied by 100 they would stand:
(1) 000: (2) 500: (3) 500: (4) 1,000: (5) 8,000: (6) 25,000 or 50,000
Since 8,000 years is approximately the date of the end of the latest
glaciation (5), the numbers may be all accepted as the approximate number
of
years required for the various stages of weathering. Hence stages (2) and
(3) may have required each about 500 years.
The composition of the stone makes it one of the most durable in nature,
equaling granite, and almost equaling the dense quartzyte of the pipestone
quarry in the southwestern part of Minnesota. On the surface of this
quartzyte, even where exposed to the weather since they were formed, the
fine glacial scratches and polishing are well preserved, and when covered
by
drift clay, they seem not to have changed at all."
To begin, Wallace presents the Hotchkiss statement as if it followed
directly from and is related to the previous statements, when in reality it
is from a different section of the report and covering different material.
But that is essentially a minor point.
Wallace then tells us, without support, that Winchell for some reason
multiples his scale by Hotchkiss' 'maximum age' of 100 (not the maximum, by
the way, he says "at least" 50 to 100 years, and the complete statement
reads "at least fifty to a hundred years ago and perhaps earlier" ). This is a nonsensical thing to do, as the Hotchkiss numbers
have nothing to do with Winchell's scale.
It also, at least in my opinion, impugns Winchell's abilities. It suggests
that he was incapable of coming to his own conclusions, and that he would
do
something so patently absurd as to multiple unrelated numbers to come up
with a result. Essentially it accuses him of 'cooking' the numbers in
order
to come out with a satisfactory result.
On the other hand, Winchell quite specifically notes why he believed 100 to
be the correct multiplier for his scale: "Since 8,000 years is
approximately
the date of the end of the latest glaciation (5), the numbers may be all
accepted as the approximate number of years required for the various stages
of weathering." This has absolutely nothing to do with Hotchkiss.
No reason has been presented to suggest that Winchell did not, in the 1910
report, give a figure of 500 years to the age of the inscription. Nor is
any
attempt made to suggest that he believed the runes were of 'recent origin'.
I believe the point is quite clear and unassailable that "Vikings.."
presents an entirely incorrect view of Winchell's statements on the
subject,
and should be revised at the earliest opportunity.
+++++++++++++++++
I apologize for taking up so much time with this. I did not, myself,
realize how long or to what depth this (at first apparently simple)
rebuttal
of just a pair of Wallace's points would take up. However, I find this
point, that of the weathering of the stone, to be absolutely essential to
an
objective understanding of the conflict over the runestone.
If there were no patina, then there is virtually no case for the
authenticity of the stone. It would have been rejected by Curme and Breda
on that basis alone, let alone geologists such as Winchell and Upham. A
patina immediately suggest some age to the inscription; in general it would
take at least decades for a patina to form on the stone. This would almost
automatically exclude Ohman from being the purported hoaxer.
If we are to rely on expert opinion regarding the stone, then in addition
to
the views of the linguistic experts we must also add that all the geologic
experts agree that the inscription must have been made at least 50 years
prior to its discovery. It is not just interpetation of material that fuels
the fires of controversy, it is the seemingly established facts of geology
(Winchell's "important bulwarks of the rune stone") and linguistics that
are
in direct conflict. Each establishes a fundemental position that cannot be
reconciled with the other.
This then is the essential conundrum of the Kensington Runestone.
While certainly there are many experts who have examined the stone and been
critical of its authenticity, others, such as S N Hagen and Thalbitzer have
supported the linguistic legitimacy of the runestone. To my mind this
creates a reasonable doubt that the runestone can be invalidated on those
grounds alone.
As Frederick Turner pointed out in a 1910 letter to Bothne
"...unless the
case against the text is decidedly clear, we must admit the possibility
that
the inscription was one that demands a re-consideration of the existing
rules. Perfectly authentic inscriptions have been found which compel the
rules to be re-written. Rules are formulated from inscriptions as well as
inscriptions tested by rules." (see Blegen, "Fredrick J. Turner and the
Kensington Puzzle" Minnesota History, Winter, 1964: 139)
Its seems essential for a proper understanding of the Kensington Runestone,
for an understanding of why there are serious proponents of the runestone,
that the unanimous conclusions of the geologists who studied the stone be
accurately presented. Most articles critical of the runestone either
ignore
this aspect altogether, or present (as has been done above) quotes taken
out
of context as established results of the geological inquires.
I urge you to ignore such semantic gamesmanship. The overwhelming argument
from all sources who examined the stone is that the inscription was
weathered and so the runes not "of recent origin". I beleive in further
editions of "Vikings.." this point must be made, and suggest Hotchkiss' "at
least fifty to a hundred years ago and perhaps earlier" to be a reasonably
accurate quote regarding this.
Once more I thank you for your time,
Yours,
Michael A. Zalar
179 E. Thompson Ave #1
West St. Paul, MN 55118
651-457-8860
m_zalar@hotmail.com
PS Just yesterday I received the following letter from Dr. Richard
Ojakangas of the Dept of Geological Sciences, University of Minnesota,
Duluth. As he was one of the geologists mentioned by Mr Wolter in regards
to the current investigation of the runestone, I inquired as to whether he
felt that Wolter was as you suggested "already convinced of what the
outcome
should be." Here is his response:
"Dear Michael,
Please excuse my tardiness in answering your query concerning whether Scott
Wolter is being objective about the KRS. At least, i don't think I
answered
you. I printed our message instead of anwering promptly.
Yes, I am a bit involved in the investigation. One day last fall, 3 of us
geologists from UMD (John Green, Charlie Matsch, and I) went dwon to
Scott's
company and met with him and Paul Weiblin of the Mpls Department and a few
others and studied the stone. Let me assure you that we ar an objective
bunch. The answers are not yet in, but Scott is onto some intriguing
possibilities. I think he is indeed objective, but enthusiatstic about the
new information.
Scott recieved his BS in geology here at UMD, and then started his own
petrographic company in the TC [Twin Cities - Minneapolis/St Paul]. This
KRS thing is new to him, and simply of great interest. If he sounds
'already convinced', I would say that this is a response to the great
multitude of sceptics who have never thought it to be authentic. Scott is
absolutely correct whe he states that the STONE (i.e., rock) itself had
NEVER been really studied. The runes had, the stone had not. I am
anxiously awaiting the new info on the runes, from Nielson.
So in summary -- the answers are not yet in, but it is important tha the
entire issue is reopened, rather than brushed off as a fake based on all of
the past pronounciations. If Scott is enthusiastic on one side of the
issue, too many of the experts enthusiatically judge it a fake based on
their long-held opinions. And no one probably wants to 'eat crow'
regarding
their previously disseminated statements. Personalities get involved and
can obscure a rational restudy. THAT is not a scientifically objective
approach.
I am sure we are both awaiting further info.
Cheers,
Dick O."