A few letters from the files of J A Holvik, one of the outspoken critics of the KRS, and the publisher of many of the stories critical of Ohman, such as from the postmaster who said that Ohman would "like to figure out something tht would bother the brains of the learned."

Letter to "Svenska Americansa Postern" May 1st, 1910, translated by Holvik:

"You seem to think that the late former pastor Fogelblad in cooperaion Olof Ohman, the finder to of the said rune stone, made said stone, which is not in accordance with the truth. If Fogelblad had made that stone, you can be sure that there would have been no mistake in the rune-writing as now is claimed to be the case. Fogelblad was too sincere to fool the public and besides he was, like all other preachers, too easy-going to do a job like that. Fogelblad died in my home, an I knew him better than most in these parts. But I do not know of any "queer stories" about him. Fogelblad was no "besotted", "deposed" preacher as you say...
As far as the drunkeness is concerned, he was not more of a drinker than most of the Christians are nowdays. He would take a drink in company but never visited saloons. And it was far between drinks too; he didn't down 'em every day like many of the slanderers"
Andrew Anderson
Letter to Holvik dated Oct 20, 1949, from a grain elevator operator who lived in Kensington from 1901 - 1904
"...I saw his son often. He was not of the bright kind that could tell a lie or keep one.
That Ohman was smart enought to make the Runne stone is impossible, He nad never read a book, Knew no history, If you had now or then a few minutes conversation with him you would have said No, No, a thousand times No. You are not of the gang who invented the gun powder, not made the runne stone. He had never heard there were such things or had been such things in the world as Runnes.
He was not excited when I talked to him about it. It was somethe they had found and as far as he was concerned it was more or less forgotten. In 1901-4 it had died down much, no intrest was evident in the town. It had stood in the Bank about one year, I have visited the spot, the hill and the land three times, and have seen the stone plenty...
Ohman could not have cutt that stone unless his family would have noticed it. It would have taken a present stone inscriber about a day and a half with a lot of small chisels, his son would have noticed it and he could never have kept quiet.
Andrew A. Davidson "
From Arley R. Bjella, attorney at law, to Holvik, dated 29 Oct, 1949, regarding an article written by Holvik:
"If you recall, in that story you were quoted as saying that evidence shows that the runesone was blank when taken from the ground, and the inscription carved at a later date by Olof Ohman, the father of Ed Ohman, for motives which can only be guessed at now.

At various times it has been my priviledge to discuss this matter with Mr. Ohman (Ed Ohman), and he is quite concerned about the fact that the insinuation is now being made that his father inscribed the writing on the stone, and the implication that it leaves. While I do not know the facts as they exist, I do know that Edward Ohman is a very sincere man, and the above statement has grieved him. I do not believe he is objecting to the authenticity of the runestone, but he does not care to have statements made like above.

It is not necessary or perhaps advisable for me to go into detail in this letter how my client feels this matter occurred, but he definitely feels the stone itself is not the work of any living person, or any person connected with his family, and he further says he can explain the scrapbook and history in the deceased Ohman's posession, which contained the runic alphabets.

Arley R. Bjella"

Letter to Harold Carter, Minnesota Historical Society, passed on to Holvik, dated Nov. 14, 1949:
"An article has been sent me which states that new evidence shows that the runestone was blank when taken fromt the ground and the inscription carved at a later date by Olof Ohman. This is untrue.
The Ohman family and our family were neighbors. I was threshing for Olof at the time, September of 1898. he was grubbing trees whe he unearthed this stone and hauled it home. His intentions wer to use it for a door step -- but by handling it he noticed it had some kind of carvings on it. It was during the noon hour, Olof, myself, and my threshing crew started to remove some of the shale & deposits and the more we worked, we noticed that someone had carved on the stone.

There is more I can tell you about the finding, etc. of this stone. So I know the evidence you have received is false.

W L Sarsland"

The purpose of this is first, simply to enter this previously unpublished material into the record, and second, to show that although there was negative commentary on Ohman, there were also excupatory information, which was supressed by Holvik, Wahlgren and the like.
I make no claim that the above statements are necessarily true (though Edward's willlingness to engage a lawyer on his behalf speaks strongly to his passion in this), however if we are to consider the statements critical of Ohman, we must also consider statements such as the above.

This page hosted by GeoCities Get your own Free Home Page