Scott Wolter shares on Kensington Runestone

I attended the presentation by Scott Wolter on the Kensington Runestone Monday night at the Morris American Legion Club. He appeared as a guest of the Norskfodt Lodge, Sons of Norway, of which I am a member.
President Barack Obama describes himself as a "mutt" and perhaps I am too: half Norwegian and half Swede.
In my previous post on the Runestone, I described it as being like a "siren song" that can draw you in with its irresistible intrigue, and then leave your decaying remains behind as it becomes nigh impossible to reach any resolution.
By writing a second post on the subject, I may be succumbing to the "song" again as I did in the early 1980s. After sifting through incredibly tantalizing details and background suggesting authenticity, I ran into an orthodoxy of skepticism, entrenched in academia and sanctioned historical circles, that looked upon me and those like me as if we were deranged.
I wrote two letters to the editor of the Star Tribune. I received one nice but unenthusiastic letter back (from a subordinate who probably had it dictated to him, because this was in the days before personal computers, meaning that people weren't habitually seated at keyboards).
My contacts with a University of Minnesota-Morris professor were especially humbling. Healthy skepticism is a good thing. Lively debate is something to be lauded. Both sides have to listen well. I have listened to all the skeptical arguments with interest and respect. They are compelling arguments but mostly based on circumstantial evidence. It is possible to get a murder conviction on circumstantial evidence. It is interesting but not outright proof.
Am I the only person capable of listening to both sides with respect? Well, I think not, and the audience for Wolter's presentation seemed respectful, rational and restrained. A show of hands indicated belief in the Runestone's authenticity (i.e. that it wasn't done as a turn of the century Scandinavian prank). No hands went up when Wolter asked for skeptics to identify themselves. I was going to raise my hand but I was afraid he might quiz me in front of everyone. And it has been years since I have done serious reading on the topic. I am capable of being a skeptic just as "Zelig" transformed himself in the Woody Allen movie of the same name.
I am a skeptic in the same sense that I'm an agnostic and still go to church (First Lutheran in Morris).
Embracing authenticity in the past has gotten me hurt. By entering the fray again, I should perhaps be like Odysseus and ask to be tied to the mast of his ship when passing by the island of the sirens. Skepticism has to be shown if you want to exude an air of credibility with certain people.
Wolter gave his presentation soundly and so you might wonder: Is this the last word? We should be so lucky. He has academic and scientific credentials, which I'm sure he somewhat self-consciously puts forth to try to fend off naysayers (the same way science fiction writers put academic degrees in parenthesis after their names on bylines, making sure they'll be taken seriously).
No need to worry, Mr. Wolter, I listen seriously to what you say just like I can appreciate Star Trek. But did northern Europeans "boldly go where no man has gone before" in the 1300s? I stopped taking notes halfway through Wolter's speech, not because I dismissed him but because I felt I was watching "National Treasure" again. It's highly compelling but seems like borderline fiction.
"How can you argue with it?" an entranced listener might ask.
Well, there is a way. I might suggest that Wolter's speculative interpretation of data is like connecting the dots in a random sea of data to reach a predetermined conclusion. Maybe. But maybe his theories are 100 percent valid.
We learn that it wasn't even the Vikings who came here in that bygone age. It was some post-pagan sect. So a whole set of images associated with the Runestone gets blown out of the water. There's the Big Ole statue in Alexandria, not to mention the nickname of our state's NFL football team.
We learn that the celebrated "mooring stones" weren't used for mooring boats after all. They were marking devices.
When data doesn't exactly fit Wolter's theories, he tries to rationalize those deviations, instead of admitting there could be an alternative explanation.
If the Runestone was in fact a land claim marker, was it actually used for that purpose subsequently or just left behind? Why would land claim markers be necessary in such wild, virgin country where the natives weren't governed by the framework of laws characterizing Western civilization?
Wouldn't it be all these people could do, just to survive out here? Would you be interested in documenting events for posterity on a big rock if you were on the other side of the world, presumably struggling for mere survival as those "explorers" must surely have been? What are the odds that a buried rock of this kind would be found by 19th Century farmers, considering the vastness of the land?
Again the subject tears you apart, and maybe this is why Alexandria itself is so conflicted with its image: Is it a true "micropolitan" city or just a summer resort town?
If Wolter's theories gain steam, a whole raft of images will have to be erased from the area's iconography. That's too bad, in a way, because I kind of enjoyed all the Hagar the Horrible stuff.
Wolter wants politicians (state lawmakers) to get involved. Yeah, that'll solve things.
-Brian Williams - Morris Minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com