Serious and sober scholars analyze this slab of rock in the present and come up with complicated analysis that at least leaves the question of authenticity hanging out there. And, if some academic types were to read that sentence and sneer at me, I'd just say "go to hell."
The argument for authenticity asserts that ol' farmer Ohman (or accomplices) could not have had the contemporaneous knowledge to put forward runes in the form that we see on the stone. Too many nuances that cannot be explained. So, I certainly respect the arguments of Scott Wolter and others who would implore us, based on refined research, that we ought to weigh authenticity if not embrace it outright.
As a journalist I got sucked into this matter in the early 1980s. I ended up bitter because of the two sides that could not find common ground. When people in academia decide to reject something, they can become so abrasive and disrespectful. It's like when the "ancient astronaut" theory first started getting currency, despite all the amazing and credible leads behind it all, academia decided this just wasn't for them. So they went into the sneering mode. They probably felt that if this theory were to gain traction, it should have been their idea in the first place. What matters most to them is protecting their own turf, their own fiefdom.
The debate on the Runestone has followed a similar pattern. I recall a professor at UMM who reflected the type of academic condescension I'm presenting here. He is now deceased. He created his own mock artifact as an exhibit to try to show how we ought to have a skeptical attitude.
There's nothing wrong per se with being skeptical. There was in fact sufficient basis for being skeptical to a degree. But the contemporary analysis by some very sharp minds has done more than keep the debate alive, when in fact if the stone was a hoax perpetuated by a few Scandinavian jokesters, by now we could all feel quite certain of that.
I have written song lyrics abut the fascinating exhibit we know as the Kensington Runestone. I have had the chorus melody in my head for some time. I just needed to arrange some verse ideas around it, and now I have it. The song's name: "Writing on the Stone." Will I have it recorded? Possibly. I'm pleased to share it with y'all.
"Writing on the Stone"
by Brian Williams
It's in the runes
A story true
New vistas for the human race
Those Vikings went
As if hell-bent
Through hill and dale with quickened pace
Their longboats breezed
Across the seas
To Greenland and the land beyond
They felt the awe
Of all they saw
And they did sing a Nordic song
CHORUS:
We can see the writing in the runic signs
In a vast new continent where they'd reside
In a Viking frame of mind they rode the tide
And they left their writing on the stone
And they left their writing on the stone
A land so large
They could go far
And not see half the boundless West
They rowed and sailed
And did prevail
When odds were stacked against their quest
They left a stone
The legend goes
With symbols mesmerizing true
When it came forth
It shocked of course
And experts argued like on cue
(repeat chorus)
A farmer found
It in the ground
Trapped in the taproots of a tree
With furrowed brow
He wondered how
This curious stone had come to be
He did not seek
Celebrity
But now there was such fertile ground
For paper scribes
From far and wide
To make him stand out from the crowd
(repeat chorus)
He reached his end
Our farmer friend
With discourse still not put to rest
About his stone
Was it a joke?
Or proof that Vikings passed the test?
We keep the faith
Keep our game face
So we can know our history
Pilgrims be damned
Let Norway stand
As where we owe our pedigree
(repeat chorus)
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
I have no horse in this race. I heard about the runestone, went to see it, read Alice Kehoe's excellent book on the subject, and visited L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland to see the famous documented Viking site.
ReplyDeleteIt appears to me that, aside from the difficult runes, there is no motivation whatsoever for Ohman to have constructed this. I think all the skepticism is due to Americans' hatred of being taken in. Once the word hoax attaches to something, it is hard to erase. In 1900 of course the Newfoundland site was not known, so some skepticism was in order. But now, it seems to this unbiased observer that the runestone is real. No, not a message from the Knights Templar (as some have claimed), but a fascinating message from the past.