KENSINGTON RUNESTONE

The 'Kensington runestone' is a roughly rectangular slab of greywacke covered in runes on its face and side. Its origin and meaning have been disputed ever since it was found in 1898 near Kensington, Minnesota. It suggests that Scandinavian explorers reached the middle of North America in the 14th century. Its origin is uncertain, and opinions are divided as to its authenticity, with some suggesting it is an important Medieval artifact, and others (including eminent runologists such as R.I Page and James Knirk) arguing the Runestone is a hoax.

Contents

Early history

Historical support

Geography

Other artifacts?

Debate

Richard Nielsen

Physical analysis

The runic alphabet used on the stone

Linguistic and cultural context

Text

Edward Larsson's notes

Conclusion

See also

References

Early history

Swedish American farmer Olof Öhman said he found the stone while clearing his land of trees and stumps before plowing. It was reportedly on a small knoll or hillside, lying face down and buried in the root system of a tree believed to be at least ten years old. According to several witnesses, some of the roots were flattened and fit tightly around the stone. Öhman's ten-year-old son noticed some markings and the farmer later said he thought they'd found an "Indian almanac." The artifact is about 30 x 16 x 6 inches or 76.2 x 40.64 x 15.24 centimeters in size and weighs about 200 pounds (90 kg).
When Öhman discovered the stone, the journey of Leif Ericson to Vinland (North America) was being widely discussed and there was renewed interest in the Vikings throughout Scandinavia, stirred by the National Romanticism movement. Five years earlier a Danish archaeologist had proved it was possible to travel to North America in medieval ships. There was also friction between Sweden and Norway due to the Norway's independence from Sweden in 1905: Some Norwegians claimed the stone was a Swedish hoax and there were similar Swedish accusations because the stone is inscribed with a reference to a joint expedition of Norwegians and Swedes at a time when they were both ruled by the same king.
Soon after it was found, the stone was displayed at a local bank (there is no evidence Öhman tried to make money from his find). An error-ridden copy of the inscription made its way to the Greek language department at the University of Minnesota, then to Olaus J. Breda, a professor of Scandinavian languages and literature there from 1884 to 1899, who showed little interest in the find and whose runic knowledge was later questioned by some researchers. Breda made a translation, declared it to be a forgery and forwarded copies to linguists in Scandinavia. Norwegian archaeologist Oluf Rygh also concluded the stone was a fraud (based on a letter from Breda, who never actually saw the stone), as did several other linguists. Archaeological evidence of Viking settlements in Canada wouldn't appear for another half a century and the idea of pre-Columbian Vikings wandering through Minnesota then seemed implausible to most academics. (It still seems implausible to most academics; Minnesota is a far less likely Viking landfall than L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland, where archaeological evidence of a Viking presence from around the year 1000 was found in 1960.)
By now the stone had been sent to Northwestern University in Chicago. With scholars either dismissing it as a prank or unable to identify a sustainable historical context it was returned to Öhman, who is said to have placed it face down near the door of his granary as a "stepping stone" which he also used for straightening out nails (years later his son said this was an "untruth" and that they had it set up in an adjacent shed). In 1907 the stone was purchased, reportedly for ten dollars, by Hjalmar Holand, a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Holand created renewed public interest and further studies were made by geologist Newton Horace Winchell (Minnesota Historical Society) and linguist George Flom (Philological Society of the University of Illinois), who both published opinions in 1910.
According to Winchell, the poplar tree under which the stone was found had been destroyed but several nearby poplars of the same size were cut down and by counting their rings it was determined they were 40 years old thus suggesting the original poplar was around 30 years old at the time of the discovery. Since the surrounding county had not been settled until 1858 it seemed less likely the stone could be a forgery (if it had truly been found wrapped in the roots of a similar poplar tree). Winchell also concluded that the weathering of the stone indicated the inscription was roughly 500 years old. Meanwhile, Flom found a strong apparent divergence between the runes used in the Kensington inscription and those in use during the 14th century. Similarly, the linguistic forms didn't match surviving written examples from that era.
Most discussions over the Kensington Runestone's authenticity have been based on an apparent conflict between the linguistic and physical evidence. The Runestone's discovery by a Swedish farmer in Minnesota at a time when Viking history and Scandinavian culture were such popular and sometimes controversial topics casts a stark shadow of skepticism that has lingered for more than a hundred years.

Historical support

In 1354 King Magnus Erikson of Sweden and Norway issued a letter of protection (or passport) to Paul Knutson for a voyage to the Norwegian dependency of Greenland. The Western Settlement of Greenland had been found abandoned (but for some cattle) a few years earlier and it was believed the population had rejected the Church (and its ownership of the local farms, which had been gradually acquired in payment of various fees), reverted to paganism and gone to what is now known as North America.
In 1887 historian Gustav Storm mentioned the journey, suggesting it returned in 1363 or 1364. This appears to be the first published work that documents a voyage to North America matching the date on the stone. It has since been confirmed by a 1577 letter from Gerard Mercator to John Dee, which excerpts an earlier work by Jacobus Cnoyen (now lost) describing a voyage beyond Greenland that returned with 8 men in 1364. Cnoyen also mentions that a priest accompanied the voyage and wrote an account of it in a book called the ''Inventio Fortunate'' which is cited in a number of medieval and Renaissance documents, although no copy remains. That Ivar Bardson had returned either in 1363 or early 1364 is documented from a Norwegian Diploma dated 25 June 1364 where 'Ivarus Barderij' is confirmed by Bishop Botolv in Stavanger to have delivered collected tithes.
The ''Inventio'' is cited on some 16th century maps as a source for their depiction of the Arctic. It is not known if the voyage went as far as Hudson Bay but some maps are claimed to have depicted the bay at least a century before its first known exploration and this reportedly influenced Columbus in planning his own voyage west across the Atlantic. So while a clever forger could have deduced the correct date to put on the Runestone from information available at the time of its discovery, an expedition does seem to have taken place beyond Greenland, although there is no specific evidence for a journey to Minnesota as inscribed on the stone.

Geography

Kensington is near a portage between the Hudson Bay and Mississippi watersheds. A natural north-south navigation route extends from Hudson Bay up Nelson River through Lake Winnipeg, then up the Red River of the North through a canyon carved by the outflow from the glacial Lake Agassiz. It abruptly ends at the bottom of what may be an old riverbed (a location characterized by the ground rising due to isostatic rebound) west of Cormorant Lake. It has been speculated that explorers entering North America from the north and looking for a route south (perhaps aided by local native American knowledge of waterways) would have naturally been drawn into the Kensington area.

Other artifacts?

This waterway also contains alleged signs of Viking presence. At Cormorant Lake in Becker County, Minnesota, there are three boulders with triangular holes which are claimed to be similar to those used for mooring boats along the coast of Norway during the 14th century. Holand found other triangular holes in rocks near where the stone was found. A 14th century Scandinavian firesteel was claimed to have been found between the Cormorant Lake and Kensington, where the Runestone was unearthed.
However, no Viking artifacts or non-Native American artifacts dating from the 14th century have been recovered under controlled, professionally conducted archaeological investigations, and there remains a possibility they were brought by Europeans centuries later. Similarly, the dating of any Viking-like mooring holes cut into rocks in the region has been elusive.

Debate

Holand took the stone to Europe and while newspapers in Minnesota carried articles hotly debating its authenticity the stone was quickly dismissed by Swedish linguists.
For the next 40 years, Holand struggled to sway public and scholarly opinion about the Runestone, writing articles and several books. He achieved brief success in 1949, when the stone was put on display at the Smithsonian Institution, and scholars such as William Thalbitzer and S. N. Hagen published papers supporting its authenticity. However, at nearly the same time, Scandinavian linguists Sven Jansson, Erik Moltke, Harry Anderson and K. M. Nielsen (along with a popular book by Erik Wahlgren) again questioned the Runestone's authenticity
Along with Wahlgren, historian Theodore Blegen flatly asserted Ohman had carved the artifact as a prank, possibly with help from others in the Kensington area. Further resolution seemed to come with the 1976 transcript of an audio tape made by Walter Gran several years earlier. In it, Gran said his father John confessed in 1927 that Ohman made the inscription. John Gran's story however was based on second-hand anecdotes he had heard about Ohman, and although it was presented as a deathbed confession, Gran lived for several years afterwards saying nothing more about the stone. In 2005 supporters of the runestone's authenticity attempted to explain this with claims that Gran was motivated by jealousy over the attention Ohman had received.
The possibility of a Scandinavian provenance for the Runestone was renewed in 1982 when Robert Hall, an emeritus Professor of Italian Language and Literature at Cornell University (but a poor runologist; see the negative review of his book by R.I. Page) published a book (and a follow up in 1994) questioning the methodology of its critics. He asserted that the odd philological problems in the Runestone could be the result of normal dialectic variances in Old Swedish during the purported carving of the Runestone. Further, he contended that critics had failed to consider the physical evidence, which he found leaning heavily in favour of authenticity. Meanwhile in ''The Vikings and America'' (1986) former UCLA professor Erik Wahlgren wrote that the text bore linguistic abnormalities and spellings that suggested the Runestone was a forgery.

Richard Nielsen

In 1983, inspired by Hall, Richard Nielsen, a trained engineer and amateur language researcher from Houston, Texas) studied the Kensington Runestone's runology and linguistics, disputing several earlier claims of forgery. For example, the rune which had been interpreted as standing for the letter ''J'' (and according to critics, invented by the forger) could be interpreted as a rare form of the ''L'' rune found only in a few 14th century manuscripts.^[1]
Nielsen also noted that the dialect found on the Runestone was an ''a'' dialect unlike the far more common ''e'' dialect spoken by most Swedes including Ohman. This dialect was used primarily near the Bohuslän region, (at the time, known as Båhuslen region of southeast Norway, next to the border of Sweden and near a Danish area). According to Nielsen the language on the stone appears to combine dialectic forms from intersecting languages. This localisation of the dialect may be historically supported since king Magnus IV of Sweden, who sent the expedition, resided at Bohus Fortress and had been crowned king of both Sweden and Norway.

Physical analysis

In December 1998, just over a hundred years after the Kensington Runestone had been found, a detailed physical analysis was made for the first time since Winchell's report in 1910. This included photography with a reflected light microscope, core sampling and examination with a scanning electron microscope.
In November 2000, geologist Scott F. Wolter presented preliminary findings suggesting the stone had undergone an in-the-ground weathering process that would have taken a minimum of 50-200 years.
For example, Wolter noted a complete loss of mica on the inscribed surface of the stone. Samples from slate gravestones in Maine dating back 200 years showed considerable pyrite degradation but not the complete absence seen on the runestone. However, given that the gravestone samples were not subjected to the same conditions as the runestone, this comparison still suggests the runestone was buried long before the first permanent European settlement of the area in 1858.
In 2007, an authentic rune was discovered in a 13th century document which was identical to one of the unusual runes on the Runestone that linguistic experts had suggested was invented by a hoaxer. In response, Wolter examined each individual rune on the Kensington stone with a microscope. He found a series of dots engraved inside four R-shaped runes. Research found that indentical dotted runes are found only on 14th century graves in churches on the island of Gotland off the coast of Sweden. "We found the dotted R's. It's an extremely rare rune that only appeared during medieval times. This absolutely fingerprints [the Kensington Runestone] to the 14th century. This is linguistic proof. This is medieval, period" Wolter said.
Some critics have noted the surviving sharpness of the chisel work, asking how this could have endured centuries of freeze-thaw cycles and seepage. However, the back of the stone has crisply preserved glacial scratches that are thousands of years old. Other observers contend the runes have weathered consistently with the rest of the stone.

The runic alphabet used on the stone

The inscription consists of 30 different runic characters. Of these, 19 belong to the normal futhark series, i.e. a, b, d, e, f, g, h, i, k, l, m, n, o, p, r, s, t, th and v. Then there are 3 special umlauted runes, that are marked by two dots above them. These represent the letters ü, ä and ö. There is also a bind-rune that represents the combination EL. Finally, there are 7 others that represent the arabic numerals 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10. Before Edward Larsson's sheet of runic alphabets surfaced in Sweden in 2004, one was very much in doubt which one of the many different Futharks that are historically known, was represented here. Larsson's sheet lists two different Futharks (see the figure below).
The reader may verify that his first Futhark consists of 22 runes, the last two of which are bind-runes,
representing the letter-combinations EL and MW. His second Futhark consists of 27 runes, where the last 3 are
specially adapted to represent the letters å, ä and ö of the modern Swedish alphabet. Comparing these 3 Futharks --
the Kensington Futhark with Larsson's two Futharks -- it becomes clear that the Kensington runes are simply
a selective combination of Larsson's two Futharks: On the stone the runes representing e, g, n and i have been taken
from Larsson's first Futhark, and the runes representing the letters a, b, k, u, v, ä and ö have been taken from
Larsson's second Futhark. These clarifications arose after the stone had been taken to Sweden to be exhibited there.
Even now, after this recent demystification, the Swedes concede that the stone's interest as an item of cultural
and identity-creating value continues unabated.

Linguistic and cultural context

In 2001, Nielsen published an article on the Scandinavian Studies website refuting claims the runes were Dalecarlian (a more modern form). He asserted that while some runes on the Kensington Runestone are similar to Dalecarlian runes, over half have no such connection, and are best explained by 14th-century usage.
In 2004, the Massey Twins (Dr. Keith Massey and Rev. Kevin Massey) claimed that an abbreviation technique used in the phrase AVM (Av[e] Maria) on the Kensington Stone is entirely Medieval in character and could not have been known to any potential forger at the time the artifact was discovered.
In ''The Kensington Runestone: Approaching a Research Question Holistically'' (2005) archeologist Alice Beck Kehoe alluded to reports of contact between native American populations and outsiders prior to the time of the runestone, which tend to validate the possibility of a fourteenth century, northern European Scandanavian expedition. These include historical references to the "blond" Indians among the Mandan on the Upper Missouri River, signs of a tuberculosis epidemic among American Indians about 1000 A.D. and the Hochunk (Winnebago) story about an ancestral hero "Red Horn" and his encounter with "red-haired giants."

Text

The inscription on the face (where a few words may be missing due to spalling and calcification of some of the stone) reads:
'Translation':
8 Geats (South Swedes) and 22 Norwegians on acquisition venture from Vinland far to the west We had traps by 2 shelters one day's travel to the north from this stone We were fishing one day. After we came home found 10 men red with blood and dead AVM (Ave Maria) Deliver from evils.
The lateral (or side) text reads:
''har X mans we hawet at se äptir wore skip 14 thag rise from theno odh Ar wars Herra 1362''.
'Translation':
I have 10 men at the inland sea/lake to look after our ship 14 days travel from this wealth/property Year of our Lord 1362
The English translation is Nielsen's 2001 version. Typically, a modern Swede can barely make out the meaning. The ''AVM'' is historically consistent since any Scandinavian explorers would have been Catholic at that time. Earlier translations routinely interpreted ''skylar'' as ''skerries'' (or small, rocky islands) but Nielsen's research suggests this meaning is unlikely.
As an example of the linguistic discussion that has surrounded this text, the Swedish term ''opthagelse farth'' (journey of discovery), or ''updagelsfard'' as it often appears, is not known to have existed in Old Swedish, Danish or Norwegian, nor in Middle Dutch or Middle Low German during the 14th or 15th centuries. In the contemporary and modern Scandinavian languages it is called ''oppdagelsesferd'' in Danish and Norwegian and ''upptäcktsfärd'' in Swedish, and it is considered
as a standard etymological fact that the modern word is a loan-translation from Dutch ''opdagen'' and German ''aufdecken'', which are in their turn loan-translations of French ''découvrir''. In a conversation with Holand in 1911 the lexicographer of the Old Swedish Dictionary (Soderwall) noted that his work was limited mostly to surviving legal documents written in formal and stilted language and that the root word ''opdage'' must have been a borrowed Germanic term (i.e. Low German, Dutch or High German); which can easily be seen from the ''-else'' ending, which characterizes a whole class of words that the Scandinavians borrowed from their Southern neighbors. However, it cannot have been
borrowed from those parts, before they in their turn had borrowed it from the French language, which did not happen
before the 16th century. Linguists, who, due to this and other similar facts, reject the Medieval origin of the KSR, consider this word to be a neologism and have noted that late 19th century Norwegian historian Gustav Storm often used the term in a series of articles on Viking exploration published in a Norwegian newspaper known to have been circulated in Minnesota.
Nielsen suggests that the Þ transliterated above as ''th'' or ''d'' could also be given a ''t'' sound, so for him the word translates as ''uptagelsfart'' (acquisition expedition), also an acceptable 14th-century expression. A problem with this suggestion is that in the rest of the text, the Thorn rune regularly corresponds to modern Scandinavian d-sounds and only occasionally to historical th-sounds while the T-rune is used for all other t-sounds.
Another characteristic pointed out by skeptics is the text's lack of cases. Norse had the four cases of modern German. They had disappeared from common speech by the 16th century but were still predominant in the 14th century (see Swedish language). Moreover the text does not use plural verb forms, which were also predominant in the 14th century but have disappeared from the modern languages. The examples are (plural forms in parenthesis) "wi war" (warum), "hathe" (hafðum), "[wi] fiske" (fiskum), "kom" (komum), "fann" (funnum) and "wi hathe" (havum). On the other hand, proponents of the stone's authenticity point to examples of these forms in 14th-century texts.
The inscription contains runic (or pentadic) numerals that have never been found on any other verified rune stone. Numbers were usually written as words with individual runes. For example, to write ''EINN'' (one) the runes E-I-N-N were used (not numerals) and the word ''EN'' (one) is in the Kensington inscription. Writing all the numbers out (such as ''thirteen hundred and sixty-two'') would have severely cramped the available surface space, so the stone's author (whether a forger or 14th-century explorer) simplified things by using pentadic runes as numerals in the Arabic positional numbering system, which had appeared in Scandinavia by the 14th century.

Edward Larsson's notes

Many runes in the inscription deviate from known 14th-century fuþark but in 2004 it was discovered that these appear along with pentadic runes in the 1885 notes of an 18-year-old journeyman tailor with an interest in folk music, Edward Larsson. A copy was published by the Institute for Dialectology, Onomastics and Folklore Research in Umeå, Sweden and while an accompanying article suggested the runes were a secret cipher used by the tailors guild, no usage of futharks by any 19th-century guild has been documented.
Without a source for Larsson's runerows (for example an ancient book or modern guild derivation) it is difficult to give their origin any particular date range. The runes could have been available for use by a 19th-century forger, but Larsson's notes eliminate any possibility that the unusual runes were made up on the spot by the stone's author.

Conclusion

The Kensington Runestone could be a 19th century forgery or an important archaeological find from the 14th century. Those who ascribe a Scandinavian origin to the stone claim it shows evidence of obscure medieval runes and intersecting word forms which would have been unknown to potential forgers in the 1800s. These advocates tend to be enthusiastic but may lack professional credentials. Interested professional archaeologists, historians and Scandinavian linguists tend to question the stone's provenance. Any discussion of the runestone (such as suggesting the runestone's runes were used by 19th century guilds, or that the knoll on which it was found may have been a small island 600 years earlier) is fraught with opportunities for misinterpretation and speculation.
By 2002 further analysis by Nielsen suggested the stone's linguistics were plausible for the 14th century. Evidence for all of the unusual word and rune forms has reportedly been found in medieval sources. Historically, it appears there may have been an exploratory trip beyond Greenland in the year mentioned on the stone and geochemical analysis suggests the stone was buried prior to the first documented arrival of Europeans in the region.
In a joint statement for a 2004 exhibition of the stone at the Museum of National Antiquities in Stockholm, Nielsen and Henrik Williams, a professor of Scandinavian Languages at Uppsala University and a proponent of the forgery theory, noted there were linguistic discrepancies for both 14th and 19th century origins of the inscription and that the runestone "requires further study before a secure conclusion can be reached." This was a rare instance in which the academic community and runestone enthusiasts found something upon which they could agree.

See also

★ L'Anse aux Meadows

★ Nomans Land (Massachusetts)

★ Bat Creek Inscription

★ Heavener Runestone

★ Turkey Mountain

★ Shawnee Runestone

★ Poteau Runestone

★ Viking Altar Rock

★ Vinland map

★ Mandan Indians

★ Bryggen inscriptions

★ Kingigtorssuaq Runestone

★ Spirit Pond runestones

References

;Inline
1. The Kensington Runestone - sk(l)ar

;General

★ Museum of National Antiquities in Sweden: The riddle of the Kensington Runestone

★ Kehoe, Alice Beck, The Kensington Runestone: Approaching a Research Question Holistically, Waveland Press, 2005.

★ Runestone Museum in Alexandria, Minnesota

★ Authenticity of the Kensington Stone pro-authenticity view

★ The mystery of the Kensington Stone

★ Joint statement by Nielsen and Williams for The Museum of National Antiquities (other pages on runestone also available at this site)

★ R. Nielsen, S. F. Wolter, The Kensington Runestone: Compelling New Evidence (2005)

★ Kensington, Minnesota's page on the stone

★ American Linguists Kevin & Keith Massey's research on the Kensington Stone (2004 “Authentic Medieval Elements in the Kensington Stone in Epigraphic Society Occasional Publications Vol. 24 2004 pp 176-182) Mysteries of History Solved

★ Two runic stones, from Greenland and Minnesota, , William C., Thalbitzer, Smithsonian Institution, ,