An "Academic" Hit Job on the Kensington Rune Stone

I resisted giving attention to this sad excuse for an "academic" paper, but because it made its way tangentially onto a cable television show causing confusion on the part of the public, I decided it needed to be addressed.  Let's be clear from the start, the motivation behind this paper is the fanatical "belief" of the author the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS) is a modern hoax.  The other motivation is what appears to be a deep-seated hatred of me personally, and professionally.  After a short stint working in my laboratory, this individual was relieved of his employment almost twenty years ago.  This individual also holds the distinction of being the only person I ever had to personally walk out the door of our business.

Now that I've provided a little context, let's look at just a few of the many problems with this paper.  The author purports to have earned a PhD in geology, but with so many factual errors, leaps in logic and flippant opinionated statements with no logical factual support it suggests it has been so long since this person did any actual geology, he must have forgotten basic geological principles.  There are so many problems with this paper it's hard to know where to begin, but one sentence in the abstract might be a good place to start.  The sixth sentence on line seven is refers to the geological makeup of the KRS, "This coating is consistent with stucco applied to the surface of the sandstone."

1. The rock is not sandstone, it is a Paleoproterozoic aged (1.85-2.1 billion years old) metagraywacke that originated in the Thomson Formation located in Carlton, Minnesota.  This rock name probably won't make sense to most people reading this, but in the world of geology it is a glaring sign the author doesn't understand the mineralogy and metamorphic textures so prevalent in this rock.  The difference is significant and a PhD geologist should know better.    

The face side of the Kensington Rune Stone contains the first nine lines of runic text and the naturally formed yellowish-white, triangular shaped hydrothermal calcite covers the surface of the lower left third of the stone (top).  Below is the intentionally split side containing the last three lines of text including the Pentadic date of 1362.  The "H" at the bottom end of the stone was carved by Hjalmar Holand in 1908, when he had possession of the stone.

2. Calling the hydrothermal calcite on the face side of the stone "stucco", and "applied" to the surface is mystifying.  The yellowish-white colored triangular shaped area in the lower-right third of the face side of the artifact is hydrothermal calcite deposited along a joint fracture when the stone was still part of the bedrock millions of years ago.  Arguing the obviously naturally formed calcite is somehow modern manmade plaster is absurd with no factual basis whatsoever.

Having operated a materials forensic laboratory examining primarily concrete, mortar, grout, stucco, and rock for the past 31 years, this claim is ludicrous.  Stucco contains  Portland cement and sand which is easily identifiable with the naked eye.  The author's inability to distinguish between the calcite deposited within a joint fracture millions of years ago, verses modern stucco reeks of an agenda verses incompetence.  Further, the word "applied" implies someone intentionally put a naturally formed mineralogical feature on the rock which is impossible.  Throughout the paper the author makes unsupported assertions as statements of fact when they simply are not.  It's like the "Big Lie" of the KRS skeptic arguments where the author repeats falsehoods so often he begins to believe them.  

3. On page 7 the assertion is made the stone was used as "stepping stone" by Olof Ohman, (spelled incorrectly in the paper as Olaf) when there are two direct sources that say the opposite.  The first was Olof Ohman. In 1909, Newton Winchell interviewed Olof Ohman, and wrote in his field notebook Ohman said the stone was stored "inside the shed" until the stone transferred custody to Hjalmar Holand in August of 1907 (Nielsen/Wolter, Page 237).  The second his son, Edward Ohman, who stated emphatically the stone "...was never used as a doorstep" in an interview with the Minnesota Historical Society in 1949.  Therefore, all subsequent assertions and conclusions made based on this erroneous assumption are invalid.  

This newspaper photograph shows Edward Ohman (left) being interviewed by Bergmann Richards about the discovery of the Kensington Rune Stone in 1898.  During the December 29, 1949 interview when asked about the stone being used as doorstep in front of the granary Ohman replied, "The story goes it was used as a doorstep, but it never was."  The author chose to ignore this fact to further erroneous arguments based on this decades old falsehood.

I should also point out one of the author's citations about what Winchell supposedly said about the stone serving as a "stepping stone", which Winchell never said, he attributes to the year 1915.  This is problematic as Professor Winchell died in 1914.  

The grave stone of Professor Newton H. Winchell in Lakewood Cemetery, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Winchell studied the Kensington Rune Stone from 1909-1910 and concluded, "...the said stone is not a modern forgery and must be accepted as a genuine record of exploration, in Minnesota, at the date stated in the inscription."

4. On page 9, the author seems to think it is appropriate for Professor Emeritus, Mike Michlovic, a harshly biased archaeologist who believes the KRS is a hoax, with no training in proper scientific method, mineralogy or petrology, to provide critical review of the geological weathering work performed by myself, a licensed professional geologist, and Professor Newton H. Winchell, the first State Geologist of Minnesota (1875-1900).  That's like asking a massage therapist to review the scientific work of a brain surgeon.   

5. The author also makes the claim on page 9, retired Professor of Geology, Paul Wieblen, "...have made detailed studies on it."  This is grossly misleading.  I was with Dr. Wieblen when he performed a single electron microprobe traverse on the core sample from the Rune Stone at the University of Minnesota to document its elemental composition.  That was all he did.  Dr. Wieblen never examined a thin section as claimed in the paper.  If the author is wrong about this simple fact, what other facts did he get wrong? 

6. The author's claim he examined a thin section of the KRS is simply a lie, and his write-up about its composition is pure fiction.  I maintained tight control of all samples taken from the KRS and only allowed senior petrographer, Gerard Moulzolf, and retired Professor Emeritus of Geology, Richard Ojakangas, to examine thin sections.  Frankly, I didn't trust the former employee to be competent or objective, and this paper has proven it was the right decision. 

7. The author's claim in the Introduction the inscription is not consistent with the 14th Century runic tradition is simply wrong.  All the words, runes, dialect, grammar, and dating within the inscription have been found to be consistent with the 14th Century.  Further, the author's bias is obvious in citing only critics whose outdated complaints have since all been proven wrong.    

8. Figure 4 on page 12 showing photographs portraying the similar appearance of modern stucco and the hydrothermal calcite on the face side of the KRS as some kind of proof they are the same is ridiculous.  It's like saying an image of Jesus on burnt toast proves he was the son of God.  The subsequent in-depth argument the hydrothermal calcite could somehow be modern stucco made with Portland cement is too silly to waste the reader's time on refuting.  

At this point, there are too many more problems with the rest of the paper to bother with.  It's simply dead on arrival.  

So why does it matter that the author decided to seemingly intentionally castrate himself professionally with a work of such poor quality?  The reason is word of this person's criticism of my work on the Kensington Rune Stone made its way into the season-ending cliffhanger episode of a cable television show on the Science Channel, in January of this year.  I appeared in 10 of 12 episodes of "Secrets of the Viking Stone" with hosts Elroy Balgaard, and Peter Stormare, who has appeared in many movies including the movie "Fargo." 

In the final minutes of the final episode of the cable television series, "Secrets of the Viking Stone", Peter Stormare (pictured here) and Elroy Balgaard, discuss the erroneous claim the Kensington Rune Stone was a hoax.  This cliffhanger finale intentionally left the audience with a mixed message about the authenticity of the stone.  It is hoped they will get an opportunity to set the record straight in the near future.

Throughout the series, Peter and Elroy would turn to me for historical facts and scientific information about the Kensington Rune Stone that proved it is a 14th Century artifact, carved and buried as a land claim, by the ideological descendants of the medieval Knights Templar order.  One of the guest experts on the show, and outspoken critic of the stone, Professor Emeritus of Archaeology, Mike Michlovic, recommended the producers of the show contact the author of the paper who did not respond to their inquiry for more information.  This was no surprise, since writing a hit piece for an archaeological journal no one will ever read, is different than defending your shoddy work on television for all the world to see.

The mistake by the producers of the show, was taking the risk of using the fraudulent claims as a cliffhanger, in the hope of getting another season of their show.  Their plan was to rectify the situation in future episodes, but unfortunately, the plan backfired.  In large part because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the show was not green-lit for a third season.  This means the last thing the audience heard was my geological work called into question without an opportunity to refute it.  So it goes in the TV business.      

Let me be clear, I welcome legitimate criticism of my scientific work and always have.  That is why my geological work on the Kensington Stone was peer reviewed by eight academic and professional peers prior to publishing my multiple reports, papers and books.  The professional and academic review process is vital to ensure competence in the work performed, and confidence in the conclusions reached.  More especially in a case like this that has large historical implications. 

This geological "hoax" report coming from a PhD would be laughable if it weren't so sad.  One can only conclude someone supposedly this "smart" was haunted by the dogmatic pursuit of a personal agenda.  What else would motivate someone to publish such poor work that can only be described as an academic "hit job" on the Kensington Rune Stone.  Perhaps the best way to understand how ridiculous this paper is, is the fact it was published in an archaeological journal, not a geological journal.  Archaeology is an opinion-driven discipline that loves to brag about its peer review process.  Where was the proper peer review of this abomination?  This guy wouldn't dare submit this nonsense to an accredited geological journal.  Personally, I think the University of Minnesota should revoke the PhD they granted to this guy for blatant incompetence and breach of professional ethics.      

Here is a link to the paper: 

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.academia.edu/45218145/The_Kensington_Runestone_Geological_Evidence_of_a_Hoax?fbclid=IwAR3GJJQffeFMqK4YqUvbnkf-WUGcCt9hTbafNiXzqcip6ExE6t7bPkFQ4jY&h=AT0KFGL32t9EuRBqEUlROiMC9-arblYwU1W8Ua9n7XTBTDEEM87S9o6TS9ZFfpSM2IgQw21jcpTdMiLbnhEX5nDKYOPvO6rY5MLQvIHzsiZGAj-2-aC01-Vkg93hL3i0Bsyginqn1w&__tn__=-UK-R&c[0]=AT3AOZN6HoPz1tle_XckRCHX0ywvR7d15rH0q921wxif-s5yfSzHhxPs5qkYLnGY4OVDbPPAVlBAMjZIfqwaDkghoSkYeWYl5bjzuQEq3pswyJDNlhISg-lxldTF4XztaZg4xEawyql7szRdBTvECSgCnUcpCaENeJiZPMvqML7DDwmvZ_mAF7E9V4X8o4ToljGlXcCqMgWo_GChMFGF