KRS: Final thoughts

In a week (on July1), the call center that I work at will be closing.
As I have used my free time that at work to prepare my responses here,
my posting on the Kensington Runestone will be considerably reduced if
not halted altogether. I have been accused, in my seven years here, of
being something of the voice of reason on this volatile topic, and I
hope that accusation has stood me in good stead with some of the
patrons of the group. I would, therefore, like to present a final
summation of my opinions on the KRS, in hopes that it will not fall
entirely on those whose minds are entirely closed on the subject.

When I first came to sci.archaeology, in 1998, I was in search of
arguments against authenticity. I had read Hall's 1982 book on the
KRS, which gave a strong pro-authenticity argument, but was seeking the
other side of the story. I entered the fray with a great deal of
trepidation, having read some of the heated discussions, which had gone
on. Still, I threw myself into it and believe I began to have an
impact by clearing up some misrepresentations by quoting at length from
source material (mainly taken from Blegen).
As I got hooked on the subject, I started digging through the numerous
files at the Minnesota Historical Society and continued to post as I
came across relevant material. I can't say when exactly I when I
went from being skeptical about the KRS to believing that it was likely
authentic, but the discussions I got involved in here certainly helped
to define and sharpen the arguments I found myself using.

With all the research I have done in several states and Canada, as well
as various professionals in several different fields, I think that I
can claim to be an expert on the runestone. I have had a pair of peer
reviewed articles published, have been interviewed by television and
radio, have had an article published by the largest paper in Minnesota,
and even been consulted by a playwright. I have given several lectures
on the Runestone, and my book has sold well both in the US and in
Sweden. I believe, therefore, that I can speak with some considerable
authority on the KRS.

I try to be conservative when considering evidence. While there is a
place for speculation, I feel it necessary to consider all aspects of a
particular piece of information, and weigh it accordingly. For
example, the tree that stood over the stone: while one person gives a
relatively small size to the diameter of the trunk, a far greater
number give the size as being 8-10 inches, including the one document
written shortly after viewing the trunk. I therefore consider it a
high probability that the later figure is correct.
As set down in the Minnesota Historical Society report, several trees
of this diameter were cut down on Ohman's farm for comparison, and by
examining the tree rings, all came to about 40 years of age. It was
thought that the tree was stunted, the reason given by one of Ohman's
sons that the ground was clay-y and on a slope. I have checked with
other sources regarding the ground on the runestone hill and have
verified that it is of clay.
Holand, giving reference to certain tree growth charts, suggests that
the tree in such soil may have been 80 years old, but I do not feel
that this claim is necessarily well supported. It would seem that the
most likely age of the tree was about 40 years of age (or about the
time the first settlers arrived in the county), though I am willing to
entertain the possibility that it was younger. However, it does appear
highly probably that the tree predated Ohman's ownership of the farm.
I have gone into some depth here to show by example how I evaluate
evidence. I do not use supposition or unsupported claims. I am driven
by the best evidence, not guessing games or might have beens. The
greater the evidence for a particular point, the more secure it
becomes. The size of the tree, as supported by at least a half dozen
people - the age of the tree supported by three different cuts of
similar trees in the area, as well as government estimates. Even at
this, there are no certainties, only possibilities and likelihoods.

The tree is a good place to start off the examination of the physical
evidence. I see the age of the tree as a bell curve with its highest
point around 1858 (40 years before the finding), with the ends ranging
out from 20-60 years - giving a chance of error of about 50%. While
I am tempted to use a longer mark because of the clay-y soil, and
reported "stunted" growth of the tree, I do not believe that I have
sufficient support for that claim.
Thus, I believe it is quite safe to say that the stone was interred
prior to Ohman taking possession of the land, with a roughly 50% chance
of the stone being interred prior to the settlement of the county
(first families (not Swedish) arriving in 1858).


In 1909, three different geologists examined the weathering of the
stone. All concluded that the inscription appeared to be hundreds of
years old; the earliest time frame given was "at least 50 to 100"
years old. If we believe the consensus of these scientists, then the
inscription was made prior to 1800, and given the history of the
region, must be considered authentic. However, weathering is a highly
variable process, and therefore in my judgments I prefer to use the
most conservative estimate, that of at least 50 years, again predating
the settlement of the area.

There has been no scientific refutation of the opinions of these
geologists.

Based on this evidence, the likely age of the tree that grew over the
stone and the multiple opinions of the weathering of the stone, it must
be considered highly probable that the inscription was made prior to
the arrival of the first Swedish settler in the area, and certainly
earlier than Ohman's immigrations to the US (1879). In light of
this, and until such an explanation of the weathering can be made by
the critics, I believe it justified to at the minimum say the
hypothesis that the inscription is a forgery is contested (if not the
authenticity being proved).

These were my feelings in the late 90's, and it is still the position
that I support. At that time, I argued that further studies were
necessary, especially on the physical aspects of the runestone. Scott
Wolter's research has been a large step in that direction (and
talking with other geologists who have examined his work he is acting
in a scientifically correct manner). His initial examinations
supported the 1909 geologists in that there was severe weathering of
the inscribed portion of the stone. As is proper with the scientific
process, he has collected further evidence. This evidence (based on
the weathering of mica in datable gravestone samples) supports the
original hypothesis, and extends the suggested time frame out to 200
years of weathering. If this is true, the inscription must be
authentic.

However, I do not believe the current level of geophysical examination
to be conclusive. The sampling taken for the second stage of the
examination was limited, and may not be entirely indicative of the
weathering of mica overall. Wolter is continuing to procure samples
for further examination. I suggest further research in necessary, but
if the current thesis holds, then the inscription is undoubtedly
authentic.


The format and message of the inscription holds little objective
evidence as to its authenticity. The message on the face of the stone
is written in a style similar to that of classic runestones, but can be
said to differ in various aspects. However, it is not unreasonable to
consider either a forger or an explorer to use such a model. The side
of the stone offers additional information but seems to be an
afterthought, as it does not blend in with the traditional runestone
model.

A couple of points do influence me on a more subjective level, though.
The length of the inscription does not seem necessary for a forgery -
a simpler inscription would have accomplished much the same purpose,
but with a lesser chance of discoverable error (and required
considerably less physical exertion).
The AVM is also of considerable interest. This is set in Roman letters
as opposed to the runes used throughout the rest of the inscription.
Combining Roman letters and runes was rare, but not unheard of, in
medieval times. I cannot believe a forger would dare to add Roman
letters without the knowledge that doing so would be in accordance with
medieval usage. But if a forger had this rather obscure knowledge, how
is it that he did not have knowledge of the correct runes for the
period?
This is not by any means hard evidence. We cannot know the mind, the
motivations or knowledge, of a proposed forger (or for that matter of a
14th century runesmith). It is a conundrum that while rationally moot,
is strong enough to color the picture on a subjective level in favor of
authenticity.

A similar problem can be said to exist with the runes. While a pair of
authentic but rarely used medieval runes can be found in the
inscription (the crossed L and the dotted R), it is not impossible for
a 19th century forger to have knowledge of the runes. Likewise, well
many of the runes are unusual for the 14th century, none seems to be
impossible for that time period. If an early inscriber had used the
common runes for his time, the inscription would look considerably
different, but similarly had a modern forger used the works commonly
available which showed runes, there would not be any of the
'errors' that are often used to condemn the stone. There is no
smoking gun here, one way or the other.

The conclusions, based on the dialogue between Nielsen (pro
authenticity) and Williams (con), of the linguistics used in the
inscription is also clouded. "The latest research shows that at any
rate the language of the Kensington Stone is generally consistent with
both the 1300s and the 1800s. One cannot absolutely exclude either the
one or the other century." It must be pointed out that a number of
the original linguistic arguments against the inscription have been
shown to be incorrect, based on knowledge that has been gained over the
past century.
However, I do side with Williams to the extent that I agree that there
are still a large number of exceptions that must be made for the KRS to
be authentic. While this might be explainable by the composition of
the crew and the extended length of the voyage, I still feel that the
weight of evidence on this point favors the modern forgery hypothesis.


To the best of my knowledge the first written suggestion that there was
an exploration beyond Greenland circa 1360 came in a book by Gustav
Storm in 1887, before the KRS was discovered but almost certainly after
it was carved (according to the physical evidence mentioned above).
This was supported by other scholars such as Gjessing and Nansen, and
appears to have been based on a voyage by Paul Knutson.
Evidence of such an expedition was supported by the excerpt from the
Itinerum of Cnoyen in a 1577 letter from Mercator to Dee, not published
until the 1950s. This excerpt clearly stated that an expedition beyond
Greenland returned with eight crewmembers in 1364, and connected this
voyage with a work called the Inventio Fortunate. This later book,
though now lost, is mentioned in several medieval documents (including
several maps again giving a date of circa 1360) and is considered to be
authentic for the time period by all the scholarly commentary that I
have found on the subject.
It seems, then, highly likely that there was an exploratory expedition
of some sort that sailed beyond Greenland at the same time as the date
on the KRS. It also seems highly unlikely that a forger would have
this information, as it was not suggested until after the stone was
inscribed. It is possible for a forger to have made a lucky guess, but
given that a forger could have selected any date between 1000 and 1400
(dates of the known occupation of Greenland) and giving a slight window
for which a date on the stone would be compatible with a 1364 return,
the chances of randomly selecting a reasonable date are only about 1%.

In short, there is sound historical context for a mission beyond
Greenland at the time the KRS was supposedly inscribed. Some
pre-Hudson maps also show what appears to be Hudson's Bay, going back
to at least 1507, and possibly back to the mid 15th century. Some of
these maps also seem to show a river going inward from the bay at the
correct location for the Nelson River (which the explorers would have
used as and inland route), and some of these even show that river going
into a large lake or sea (conceivably Lake Winnipeg). These are
enticing, but cannot be directly attributed to the Inventio Fortunate.
There may be other reasonable explanations for this, and so,
conservatively I cannot use this as objective evidence, though it
admittedly influences my subjective reasoning.

I have tried to differentiate between such evidence as can be verified
and stated with some authority (objective), and that evidence which may
still be debatable (subjective). For the former, as a rule, I require
several sources to agree on the evidence (the various mentions of the
Inventio, the size of the tree, etc), while with the later, I have made
what I consider to be reasonable analysis of the data, but for which
there may be other reasonable hypothesis put forward (the effect of
clay-y soil on tree growth, the source of Hudson Bay on maps, etc.).
Therefore, I have two different answers to the question of the
authenticity of the KRS.

Subjectively, (and based on more evidence than that presented above) I
believe it is highly likely that the Kensington Runestone is authentic.
We have data that shows a voyage beyond Greenland taking place at the
time the runestone was carved, and we know the stone was discovered on
a defensible hill within about a day and a half march from the main
river flowing north to Hudson Bay, an entirely doable journey for that
time.
The forgery theory presents a person skilled in some aspects of
medieval Scandinavian knowledge, but entirely ignorant in other
aspects, such as the common runes of the period which could be easily
copied from various books. This forger must have followed a cart path
years before the settlement of the region which was used almost
exclusively by Métis traders, spent days carving an overlong message
before abandoning the stone in the middle of nowhere with no
expectation of it being found. Highly unlikely if not impossible.
Such is my quick subjective analysis.


Objectively I must rein myself in considerably. I think that it can
now be easily said that philologically, the Kensington Runestone must
be considered at least possibly authentic.. Certainly 50 years ago,
the opinions of several different linguists pointed this out, but with
the recent dialogue does much to assure us on this point. The question
remains as to how likely it is to be authentic. Lacking background, it
is difficult to give a totally objective answer, but the authenticity
of the inscription still seems difficult.
On the other hand, the geologists' reports remain unanswered.
According to them, the stone could not have been inscribed any later
than 1848, when the first (non-Scandinavian) settlers arrived. The
possibility of a traveler with the proper knowledge at that time seems
remote, and if later dates are correct (giving a time of before 1820)
virtually impossible.

At best then, we are confronted with two opposing viewpoints, the
linguists saying the KRS cannot be authentic, and the geologists saying
it cannot be modern.

The testing of each hypothesis over roughly the past hundred years
would appear to give the edge to the pro-authenticity side. Many of
the linguistic 'impossibilities' that were given as proof against
the stone have, as knowledge about the time increased, been shown to be
credible. This should be taken with a grain of salt; however, as the
reverse (showing that certain words, expressions, etc are impossible)
would fall in the realm of trying to prove a negative. The advance of
linguistic knowledge could only shift in the direction of authenticity.
As noted before, the recent geophysical tests have also provided
results positive towards authenticity, though these have yet to be
confirmed by additional testing.

Objectively, there is a reasonable, rational basis to believe that the
Kensington Runestone is authentic. Indeed, certain geophysical aspects
must countered by critics before the KRS could legitimately be
considered proven false. The evidence so far presented by either side
cannot be considered conclusive, though each individual examiner may
form his/her own subjective assessment of the evidence and give one
hypothesis or the other a high probability of being accurate.
My objective conclusion is, then, that the Kensington Runestone must be
considered a legitimate object for further study, and that such study
continue until the issue is resolved (if it can be). I would suggest
geophysical research, a continuation of Wolter's work, as well as
some of lines of inquiry laid out by Paul Weiblen, as being most likely
to resolve the question. It occurs to me that if this artifact were
given the same intensive treatment as the questionable Vinland Map, the
century old controversy might finally be concluded.

Much of the debate that I have seen regarding the KRS has come over
non-vital issues: Was Ohman a stonemason? How far was the nearest
house to the runestone? Was the swamp a lake in the 14th century?
These are certainly questions that can sway a person's subjective
reasoning regading the runestone, but has little influence on the
larger geologic vs. linguistics debate.
Other arguments, while circling around the major issues, lack credible
evidence backing them: that the stone was artificially weathered, that
the runes were from Dalarna that the inscription was made in the
dialect of the Kensington area residents, and so on. Influential, if
true, but not backed by studies or research. Grist for the mill of
subjective analysis, but ultimately insufficient to resolve any
questions.


One argument raised against the runestone, almost as a mantra, is that
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." This is not a
scientific viewpoint, but is a means by which skeptics can introduce an
entirely subjective analysis to attack a controversial hypothesis.
After all who decides what is an extraordinary claim, and what level is
proof is required? A hypothesis needs only be supported by accurate
data, and impeccable methodology to be given credence.
Besides, is there anything really extraordinary about the KRS? It
describes an expedition which started at an advanced base in Greenland,
and needed to follow only known routes to mainland North America and
from there, coastal waters and major rivers as near as 40 miles from
where the runestone was found.
Had this adventure been accomplished by Frobisher or Hudson, it might
have been considered remarkable, but not extraordinary for its time.
What some might find extraordinary is that this voyage took place took
place prior to the voyages of Columbus. He is idolized perhaps not so
much now as the European discoverer of America, but as of being the
first great explorer to the new world. If authentic, the Kensington
voyage would be a challenge to this Columbian ideal. I believe that
its challenge to the status quo is one of the main reasons why the KRS
is so often treated with ridicule rather than curiosity, particularly
by those who have made little attempt to examine the evidence.

The above is a summary of what I believe about the Kensington
Runestone. It is not meant to cover all the evidence or resolve all
the questions about the inscription. At best, it reveals the results
of a reasonable and rational approach to the problem across more than
half a decade. I hope this will be a jumping off place for those who
would like to inquire further into this curiosity and go beyond the
heated and sometimes questionable debate in this newsgroup.

Its been a long and illuminating seven years. I have learned a good
deal of new information here, and have also learned how to refine my
arguments regarding the runestone to reflect some of the criticisms
that have been offered. I am not entirely ending my stay, but my
postings will now come few and far between - hell I've been slowing
down over the past few years anyway, because of the googlization
(harder to find my place among the posts) and the repetitive nature of
some of the arguments. I guess my final advice to all here is to try
and check every fact before you give it credence. That has been my
rule, anyway.

Michael Zalar
That Kensington Guy
1191 Han*** St.
St. Paul, MN 55106
m_zalar@xxxxxxxxxxx

.