The Kensington Rune Stone is an artifact that takes on the aspect of an almosr religious nature when it is dsicussed. Both advocates and critics speak of it with a zealotry that is quite amazing, frequently resorting to campaigns of ridicule and misinformation to prove their point. Undoubtably a great deal of this is due to the seeming impossibility of the find. If it is authentic, being thousands of miles removed from any known Norse community of the time, its appearance would seem almost mystical - a thing of awe, like the dead sea scrolls.

I hope to avoid that trap, and believe that I have been fairly successful. I believe in the authenticity of the Rune Stone, and this belief is based on an examination of the documents pertaining to the Stone, both pro and con - therefore this site is mainly concerned with those documents, and my interpetations thereof.
I don't think that one can conclude from the evidence presented here that the stone is authentic. I do think that one can conclude from this evidence that there are questions remaining about the stone which must be answered before it can be reasonably considered a hoax, and that the weight of the evidence is considerably on the side of the stone.

The one thing associatied with the Stone that I do find myself getting angry at, however, is the desire by many critics to create a scapegoat in the person of Olof Ohman, the finder of the artifact. There is a great deal of exculpatory evidence which I present in the articles in this site.
Those who accuse Ohman cosistantly seem to ignore such things as the geologist's report which gives a minimum age of 50 years to the inscription, instead relying on rumors to support their accusations. To quote Blegen, a critic, who spent many years working on the stone: "Again and again I seem to be on the edge of a really significant discovery, and then I find that I have an unverified rumor."
I hope in these pages to cut through those rumors, to reveal some of the evidences that show Ohman could not have inscribed the stone. Perhaps even to show some of the tricks which have been used by the experts to mislead the casual reader into believing that Ohman was a forger and a fraud. I hope here to clear that name of any wrongdoing.

The jury is still out on the Kensington Rune Stone - the prosecuters have had their day, and now it is time for the defence to put up other evidence in the case. I guess from my standpoint that makes you the jury - please let me know what you think. And let others know about this site as well.

Thank you,

Michael Zalar

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page