>

Next we can turn to Winchell's investigation of the stone. He made several trips to the Kenisngton area, and the following comments on the finding of the stone come from his notebook which was not published until Blegen's book in 1968. The notes are listed in chronological order, but I am including only those related to the finding of the stone.

"The Rune Stone was found SE cor. of sec 14, in Solum township in Douglas county, by Olaf Ohman, on his farm, about three miles north of Kensington station."

"Under a poplar about 5 or 6 in"

"Not found on a hill, but on the south slope of hill."

"The engraved stone was at frist brought to the house & then to Kensington &w was exhibited in a window by Hedberg or Johnson."

"With Ohman when the stone was found was his neighbor Mr. Flotten."
"Laborer really uncovered & discovered the stone, but did not notice at first the engraving. He was Ohman's son & was working for Ohman with neighbor Flotten"

"The tree was bout 4 or 5 inches in diameter at about 15 inches above the stone, and about ten inches in diameter at six inches or 8 inches above the stone."

"The root which spread over the surface of the stone was flattened on the lower side. Those thet went down across the edge of the stone were also flattened, and spread somewhat from each other."

"Mr. Oleson made a drawing intended to show the probable position of the stone and the tree, as described above."

"About in the spring (May) of (1890?) Mr. Sam Olson and a party visited the place and made some excavation where the stone was found. He saw, and all his party saw, the stump of the tree that grew on the stone. This was the spring after the Summer when it was found (It seems to have been found in Nov.) " [there follows here a listing of the members of the party]

"Mr. Olson and Mr Johnson (John E.) are positive that the tree must have been at least ten years old, & was more likely 20 or 30 years old. Mr Johnson thinks it was and ash, but is not certain."

"Mr Ohman called the tree an "asp", ie aspen, or trembling poplar of the region, very common in the state."

"Mr Hovedt saw the roots & verivies the description of their flatness, 'such as would be caused by lying against a stone.'

"Mr Ohman declares that the tree was asp (poplar), & had two main roots & the larger one was that which ran down vertical, & the rune inscribed side was down. Of that Mr O. is very positive. his boy says the same, was about 10 years old."

"Mr. Ohman said the main root of the tree was at the edge & went down nearly perpendicular, in that respect differing from Mr. Olson & his sketch."

"it will be noted that he (Hotvedt) confirms the aspect of the roots -- which is fatal to his idea that Ohman made the inscription since by all opinions the tree was older than the residence of Ohman on the farm."

Though the notebook entries continue on at some length beyond this point, this is the last entry regarding the finding of the stone. It should be evident from the above that Winchell contacted a number of people regarding the discovery of the stone, including Hotvedt who thought the stone was a fraud. The descriptions given match what was said in the affidavits, and add credence to their veracity. It also adds credence to the story of the discovery as made by Winchell in the Preliminary Report, at least to the extent that what is given there is what was generally accepted by the local population. Which I think is as good a segue as I can get, and so onto The Discovery section of the Preliminary Report. Note that I again edit this, for purposes of time and to save my wrists.

"The stone was found on the farm of Mr. Olof Ohman.. on November 8, 1989. The owner of the farm was having a patch of land cleared of timber preparatory to plowing, and his men were grubbing out the stumps. There were present at the finding, or immediately thereafter, the following persons: Olof Ohman, his sons, Olof Emil Ohman, 12 years of age, and Edward Ohman, 10 years of age, and Nils Olof Flaaten, owner of the adjoining farm. The exact location was on the southern slope of oneof two knolls which together form the higher part of what might have been called an "island," because formerly surrounded by a lake and now surrounded by a grassy marsh. These knolls have an extreme height above the surface of the marsh, of fifty-five feet, the smaller knoll rising about fifty feet. The stone lay forty-four feet abouve the marsh. When the stone was found, its inscribed side was down, and about six inches of soil covered it. A poplar or aspen tree grew above it, and spread its principal roots about it, running into the ground on opposite sides. On being cut away, the stump carrying the roots lay adjacent for some weeks and was seen and noted by several visitors. Estimates as to the size and age of the tree vary somewhat, some stating tht is was at least ten years old and others that it wass form twenty to thirty years old, and one estimating it as probably forty years old... The roots of the tree, especially the largest one whcih spread over the surface of the stone, were flattned by contact with the stone during the period of their growth. The flattening of the roots is an important feature, as it denotes that the tree had been in contaact with the stone dure the whole time of the life of the tree... Mr Samuel Olson and Mr. John E. Johnson signed a joint statement that the tree must have been at least ten years old, and more likely twenty or thirty years old. The rest of the party have note been consulted,* but Mr. Joseph Hotvedt state that he saw the roots and verified the description of their flatness 'such as would be caused by lying against a stone'... For the purpose of ocular illustration Mr. Holand later procured on the spot from Mr. Ohman four sections cut across some poplar trees growing on Mr. Ohman's farm, viz, sections shown in Plates II and IV, marked a, b, c, d. The certificates of Olof Ohman and of his son Edward, as well as of Mr. Samuel Olson, are given also. The annual rings of growth on these sections can be counted as follows: On a, 37 annual rings; on b, 42 annual rings; on c, 38 annual rings; on d, 31 annual rings. >From three to five years should be added for the decayed centers. According to Mr. Ohman the tree had the appearance and rough bark of standard growth, illustrated by sections c and d, and on which there are about as many growth rings as on the larger sections a and b. If these sections a and b fairly represent the sixe of the tree, and if it still had an annual growth illustrated by c and d, which certainly were stunted trees, the age of the tree was probably neary fifty years than ten years.

Statement of Olaf Ohman [Translation]
Kensington, Minn., July 16, 1910
The sections a, b, c, d, were all cut on my property in the vicinity of where the rune stone was found under the same timber conditions. The section a is of the same size as the tree which grew over the stone; but both a and b are from much more luxuriant trees than that whcih stood over the stone. Sections c and d are from a tree which in its growth is more compareable with the rune stone tree, but are about three inches less in diameter than that.
Olof Ohman.

Statement of Edward Ohman.
July 16, 1910
The section marked a is of exactly the same size, as far as I can remember, as the tree under whcih the rune stone was found.
Edward Ohman.

Statement of Samuel Olson
Kensington, Minn., July 18, 1910
Having seen the four sections cut by Olof Ohman to show the size of the tree under whcih the rune stone was found, my impression is that the rune stone tree at its base was a little longer in its oval diameter than section b, and that it tapered so as to have about 18 inches above the base a diameter a little larger than section c.
S. Olson"

[There is nothing more regarding the discovery of the stone in this section]

So what does all this mean?

The stone was under the tree and had been for some time, no other phenomonem could have shaped the roots in such a fashion so as to exactly fit the stone. Indeed the fact that it seperated the two main roots coming from beneath the tree would indicate that the stone must have been there for the life of the tree. According to the analysis of the ring cut from similiar sized trees, and attested to by Ohman, his son, and Samuel Olson, the age of the tree was roughly 40 years old, which would place the stone as having been entombed since (lets round it off) 1860.

Acording to the census report of 1860 the entire (white) population of Douglas county ( some 720 square mile) was a whopping 195 (one hundred and ninety-five). BTW, By 1874 that figure had risen to approx 5000.
So who the heck carved the stone?!

Blegen thinks that Ohman, with his pal Sven Fogelblad somehow managed to find this stone of just the right size and shape already burried beneath the tree and entagled in its roots sometime around 1890. They then managed to disengage the stone, carve the inscription (all within sight of Nils Flatten's House), and rebury it without killing the tree.

Whalgren suggests, only slightly more feasably, that the stone was unearthed blank, and that Ohman then carved the runes in himself before revealing it to anyone. This would of course require that his son, Edward and neighbor, Nils Flatten (if not their entire families) be accesories to the hoax. Vaguely possible, perhaps, if Ohman had the necessary knowledge, skill, and temperment to carve the stone, all on a relatively spur of the moment impulse. Sorry, but I don't think that even Ohman was that clever a Swede.

Which brings us to a whole new line of discussion regarding Ohman, which I shall address at another time.

"Whalgren's theory is that the stone was found in the swamp in August, and then 'reincarnated' for the November finding - that is, inscribed with runes and somehow placed under the roots of a growing tree. He does not explain how the stone could have been inserted under the tree without damaging the roots." -Blegen p 35

"I have consulted with foresters and botanists and have learned that the roots could not have been flattened and bend from August to November, 1898 - the period assumed in the Whalgren theory of the 'reincarnation' of the stone." -Blegen p 115

"Frank Kaufert, director of the University of Minnesota's School of Forrestry, to the author, February 13, 1967, Kensington file, Blegen Papers, reporting on a discussion of the question with his staff members.
The length of time needed, according to Professor Kaufert, would depend upon the "degree of flattening, location of the stone and roots, etc." One staff member commented that the "roots may have been flattened by contact with another stone or stones that were removed when the rune stone was planted." Mr Kaufert suggested that whoever prepared the stone might have spent considerable time digging for 'suitable rocks' to replace with a 'plant'." -Blegen footnote to the above.

"Such a 'plant,' if it had been done less than three months before the rune stone was unearthed, in all probability would have left conspicuous marks in the ground. The testimony of Nils Flaten, as recorded in his signed affidavit, must be used with caution. He said that he had visited the place of the discovery earlier on the same day and had been there 'many times previously,.' but he 'had never seen anything suspicious there'. The spot, he said, had been 'covered by a very heavy growth of underbrush.' Oviously, if Flaten was a party to the imposture, his testimony was deceptive, but the mention of the underbursh has the sound of truth. When Edward Ohman was interviewed in 1949, he was asked if the 'earth where the stone was found' had 'ever been farmed or blowed or distrubed in any way' His answer was 'Never'." -Blegen p 116

> Blegen suggests that the hoax might have had a longer > genesis, and that the stone might have been placed under the tree several > years before its discovery, long enough for it for the roots of the tree > to have flattened. >
However Blegen himself does not 'explain how the stone could have been inserted under the tree without damaging the roots'. Much less how a suitable stone could have been found in the first place, how the excavation could have been done in full sight of Nils Flaten's house without raising his curiousity, and so on etc.