Posted: 12/7/2002
Skeptics of the Kensington Runestone:
More on Skeptic #1, Birgitta Wallace
By Jim Richardson and Allen Richardson
(The Kensington Runestone is an artifact unearthed a century ago by Minnesota farmer Olof Ohman. The stone’s inscription tells of an ill-fated expedition to North America that predated Columbus by a hundred years. Long derided by skeptics as a forgery committed by Ohman, the stone’s inscription has been validated and all modern scientific work indicates that it is authentic. For this series, Gonzo Science contacted all the major living skeptics and asked them about the basis for their continued intransigence.
Birgitta Wallace is a writer associated with the Smithsonian Institution who has failed to acknowledge the authenticity of the Kensington Runestone artifact. She holds to this position even in the face of the groundbreaking studies of Dr. Richard Nielsen and Barry J. Hanson, which respectively establish that a.) the language of the stone is authentic and b.) the “expert” skeptics throughout the years have not seriously studied the artifact.
We sent Birgitta Wallace a list that contained every linguistic feature of the Kensington Runestone and specifically asked her which features she believed could not have had a 14th century origin. We asked too that her objections be accompanied by citations that could be independently verified and checked in the linguistic literature. Unfortunately, Ms. Wallace failed to make even one referenceable remark, and provided no citations which could be independently verified – just like every other supposedly serious skeptic we contacted.)
During our exchange with Ms. Wallace about the authenticity of the Kensington Runestone, she wrote the following: “If you are going to do a reasonable evaluation of factors pro and con (regarding) the inscription, you should consider which scholars have considered it a modern fabrication as opposed to those who have advocated its authenticity. Judge for yourself as to whom you would place your greatest trust. If you would need a heart transplant, would you go to a cardiac surgeon or a lawyer for the operation? Unfortunately, medieval Swedish and runology require as specialized knowledge as cardiac surgery, a case that most people overlook. Below I will list some of the specialists who have pointed out the many modern aspects of the Kensington Stone inscription.”
Wallace then listed 27 language/runology specialists who are on record as being skeptical of the stone’s authenticity – the “cardiac surgeons” of her analogy.
To get another perspective on Wallace’s list of 27 specialists, we contacted Barry J. Hanson. Hanson, an expert on the “experts”, has studied literally every word ever written about the stone by each of Wallace’s specialists in his two-volume book, Kensington Runestone: A Defense of Olof Ohman – The Accused Forger. (Hanson actually identifies 32 people who have been “cited as experts and appealed to as authorities” in the century-long fight over the stone’s authenticity.)
Hanson sent us a chart of source documents which details where many of the so-called “anomalous” features of the Runestone have been found in other authentic 14th century documents. He then commented, “If I were to have a heart operation … yes I would want a cardiologist, one who studied medicine in that area. But I’d be very wary of people calling themselves heart docs when in fact they didn’t study that specialty. None of those on Birgitta’s list … even knew of the source documents on the chart you have.”
According to Hanson’s book, of the 32 people commonly cited as experts, “only six have actually published any original research on the language of the Kensington inscription. When the bibliographies of the six are examined it becomes apparent that virtually none of the pertinent source documents that would explain the provenance of the (Kensington Runestone) language were consulted … some confirmation of the (Kensington Runestone) language as medieval comes from Erikskrönikan, written in 1330. Some comes from the Swedish Diplomas (Diplomatarium Seucanum) of which thousands are registered from 1348 to 1375 with dates and places. Some comes from the law codes of the time such as the Vastergotlandic codes from 1325 and 1345. Some comes from the Codex Runicus (1319) or the Codex Bureanus. These source documents do not tend to be found in the bibliographies of the critics.”
The stone’s inscription has plainly been authenticated by the data. The specialists who were unaware of the appropriate data have necessarily been unable to authenticate the inscription.
In her correspondence with us, Ms. Wallace also presented a partial list of people who have argued in favor of the stone’s authenticity over the years. Her point was to demonstrate that these people were not (for the most part) linguists and runologists, and therefore, why should one believe them in this matter? What she fails to mention is the telling fact that of the geologists who have examined the stone, not one of them ever supported the idea of a modern hoax. Every geologist who ever examined the stone stated that it looked like it was carved a long, long time ago - as the inscription itself claims.
Next Week: Skeptics #2 and #3 (on their website, not here)
Recommended Reading: The two-volume Kensington Runestone: A Defense of Olof Ohman – The Accused Forger by Barry Hanson. Available by mail for $43.90 (includes postage) from Archaeology ITM, 3194 Smith Creek Road, Maple, WI, 54854. Also check out www.archaeologyitm.com.
0 comments:
Post a Comment