Runic Inscriptions in North America

Runic Inscriptions in North America:

An Interview of Dr. Richard Nielsen
by James Frankki

Introduction

For more than a quarter century Dr. Richard Nielsen has committed himself to studying and cataloging the
runic inscriptions of North America. While his primary interest has been the Kensington Rune Stone in Minnesota,
he has also conducted research on the Heavener Rune Stone (Oklahoma), the Spirit Pond rune stones (Maine),
the Narragansett Rune Stone (Rhode Island) and the Kingigtorssuaq inscription (Greenland). Dr. Nielsen has
studied here and abroad and has researched and photographed hundreds of rune stones in churches,
monasteries, and graveyards in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Born and raised in a Danish-American household
in California, Dr. Nielsen later worked in Scandinavia as a consulting engineer for offshore oil and gas projects.
He reads Norwegian, Swedish and Danish. He has learned the Elder Futhork, the Younger Futhork and the
Medieval Futhork with their many variations, and can also read Old Swedish, the language of the Kensington
Rune Stone (KRS).

Dr. Nielsen’s academic credentials include a B. S. in Marine Engineering from the U. S. Coast Guard
Academy, a Master of Science in Engineering from the University of Michigan, an M.A. in Applied Mathematics
(University of Michigan), and a Doctor of Technology degree from the University of Denmark, Copenhagen.

Dr. Nielsen has studied and lectured widely on the topic of runic inscriptions in North America, especially the
Kensington Rune Stone. Recently, he was invited by the Ephraim Historical Society in Ephraim, Wisconsin, to
speak in honor of Hjalmar Rued Holand, an important scholar and advocate of the KRS who made his home in
Ephraim. Last spring (2009) Dr. Nielsen lectured to the students of Sam Houston State University (SHSU) in
Huntsville, Texas on the topic, “Three Runic Inscriptions: The Kensington Rune Stone, the Heavener Rune
Stone and the Kingigtorssuaq inscription.” After the lecture he accompanied the SHSU Viking Society on a
research expedition to the Oklahoma rune stones. In the mid-80’s Dr. Nielsen met Gloria Farley, an important
advocate of the Heavener Rune Stone, and soon thereafter developed an interest in the runic inscription on the
stone. He published his first articles on the Heavener inscription in the 1986 and 1987 volumes of the ESOP
journal. Twenty-two years later it is Dr. Nielsen’s translation, which is the most widely accepted reading of this
Oklahoma monument.

Over the last twenty-three years Dr. Nielsen has devoted the majority of his time and research to solving the
riddle of the KRS in Minnesota and the Spirit Pond runes in Maine. He has published numerous articles on the
runic and linguistic aspects of the Minnesota rune stone. The first of these, entitled, “The Arabic Numbering
System on the Kensington Rune Stone,” appeared in ESOP, vol.15 (1986) and was quickly followed in 1987-
1989 by articles addressing the charges that the stone was a forgery, and could not have been carved in the
Middle Ages. (See also: “The Rune Stones of Oklahoma,” in v.16 of this journal). Dr. Nielsen has had much
success in his research on the KRS and now claims to have answered nearly all the objections, that runologists,
linguists and mathematicians have put forth against the stone’s authenticity as a medieval artifact. The importance
of his contribution to our knowledge of the KRS can best be seen in his steadfast belief that the inscription’s
provenance should not be determined until all records became available. To this end he has examined hundreds
of Old Swedish diplomas (letters) for the period of 1355-77, first published in 1953. In these 14th century
manuscripts he found evidence demonstrating that nearly all of the disputed forms and grammatical structures
used by the carver(s) of the KRS were known in 1362, the date inscribed on the stone. Of major importance was
the discovery of a diploma from 1359 written in the vernacular with five singular verbs in plural function. This
morphological structure had previously been touted as evidence of forgery on the KRS, but now is viewed as an
acceptable grammatical usage from the14th century.

ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 27 83

Runic Inscriptions in North America
Dr. Nielsen’s most recent contribution to our understanding of the Kensington Rune Stone is the translation
work he completed this year (2009) with Dr. Henrik Williams from Uppsala University. A placard with a translation
of the runic inscription into Old Swedish, modern Swedish, and English now hangs on the wall in the Runestone
Museum in Alexandria, Minnesota.

The Interview

[The following interview was reconstructed from phone conversations, e-mails and informal discussions,
which took place during the time period of February to October 2009. The content of these interviews and the
positions taken represent the views of Dr. Nielsen, and not necessarily those of the interviewer.]

Question #1. Do you believe that the Kensington Rune Stone is an authentic medieval inscription
from the 14th century? If so, at what point did you come to that conclusion? If not, what problems still
need to be resolved, before you would be able to accept the authenticity of the stone and its inscription?

Dr. Nielsen: Much progress has been made towards acceptance of the KRS as a potential medieval artifact
from the 14th century. Many past objections have been removed, but some forms continue to be disputed. I
have always viewed the KRS first as an historical artifact, “no matter what century it was carved”, as Professor
Henrik Williams is wont to say. It is not a question of belief, but of gathering enough evidence for either a 14th
or 19th century explanation. Many scholars in the past have claimed that the KRS was carved in the 19th
century due to three problems:

These were the presence of:

1) six or so runes which were purportedly invented by the carver.
2) some 20 words, many of them modern, which were thought to be nonexistent in Old Swedish in 1362.
3) the simultaneous use of a pentadic date and numbers in Arabic fashion, the combination of which was
unknown in the Scandinavian record.

While many of these problems have been resolved, there remain some difficult runologic, linguistic, and
numerical problems, which have not yet been explained to the satisfaction of all scholars, including myself.

Question #2. What advances have been made recently regarding the word forms found on the KRS
inscription?

Dr. Nielsen: In Diploma DS 6119 from 1359 the verb vprisin (set in motion) for Old Swedish uppresa (set in
motion) might indicate that an analogous spelling with “i” for “e” in the KRS noun rise resa (journey) could be
found from circa 1362. Risor (journeys) is on record from ca. 1520 in the Old Swedish Dictionary Supplements.
A few more forms still need further clarification, to determine whether they accurately reflect the language used
in 1362 (the date carved on the stone), or that of the 19th century, when some believe a forger with knowledge
of modern Swedish could have carved the stone.

Question #3. The lack of dative endings on nouns has often been touted as evidence that the language
on the KRS is modern and not medieval, since it was thought that these dative endings disappeared
only in more modern times, long after the 14th century. What is your response to those who view these
endingless dative forms as the evidence of the modernity of the KRS inscription?

Dr. Nielsen: Evidence collected by Rakel Johsson from the Old Swedish diplomas (1360-1364) shows that
the dative masculine singular was endingless 92 % of the time (Johnsson, 2003:192, Fig. 5.15) and the dative
neuter singular was endingless 55% of the time. [Johnsson, 2003:192, Fig. 5.16; see fig.1 (a & b) below]. This
means that the KRS endingless masculine “fro theno sten” (from this stone) for “fro thenom steni” and “af ded”
for “af dedi” (from death), the KRS neuter form “Vinland” for “fro Vinlandi “(from Vinland), and “af blod” for “af
blodi” (from blood) in the masculine and neuter singular, are proper forms for the 14th century. Thenom (this) in
dative masculine singular is found in the Old Swedish Grammar (Noreen 1904; 399, n16). The only dative
ending on the KRS occurs in the formulistic phrase “af illu” (from evil). Aside from this, we find on the KRS
consistent use of the dative case without endings, which corresponds to the contemporary forms of the language
used in Old Swedish diplomas in the mid 14th century.

84 ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 27

 Runic Inscriptions in North America

Fig. 1. (a & b):The disappearance of the dative system markers in the Old Swedish Diplomas from 1345-1374
in percentages.

Question #4. Could you explain the unusual verb forms found on the KRS? How do you account for
the fact that many plural nouns use verbs with singular endings? This is not something that is expected
for 14th century Old Swedish and has long been viewed as evidence for the modernity of the inscription.
Has this problem been solved?

Dr. Nielsen: The Diploma (letter—shown on the next page), DS 6097 from 1359 in Värmland, Sweden, (in
1359 the province of Värmland was part of Norway and the diploma language is seen here in a form of middle
Norwegian) shows five singular verbs apparently being used with plural subjects. It seemed at first that the only
sure use of a plural form in this document occurs in the formalized expression, “säim räth Norrigis ok vermsk
logh sighia,” [according to Värmlandic and Norwegian law]. (The translation is mine.)]

1. At þeer haffuer “that you have”

2. Sem mik gaf hustru Ølyyn ok Andorr Petersson “which Lady Elin and Andor Peterson gave me”
3. Säim prof ok skilrike hittiz til “which proof and due process are found for”
4. At þeer vnadher ”that you not disturb”
5. Vttan eigin þeer halft “instead that you own half”
ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 27 85
Runic Inscriptions in North America

Fig. 2: Diploma (letter), DS 6097 from 1359 in Värmland, Sweden.

At first it seemed there were five singular verbs in plural function, but haffuer (have), vnadher (disturb), eigin
(own) must be taken as 2nd person plural verbs in this context. Of course at this time the whole declension
system was in dissolution in Middle Norwegian, as reported by Skard (1973: 100). The KRS may well have a
Middle Norwegian dialect mixture with Old Swedish, since verbs in singular in plural function are believed to
have appeared with regularity in speech in this dialect by the mid 1300s.

Question #5. It has been argued that, although the KRS is a written text carvcd in stone, it bears
many similarities to spoken forms of the language. Could you elaborate on this particular point?

Dr. Nielsen: The dative forms without endings, the singular endings on plural nouns, and other irregular
forms on the stone can all be attributed at least partially to the fact that the carvers appear to be using colloquial
speech forms, rather than more formalized language in their carving. Examples of similar texts can be found in
the diplomas. In Diploma x142 from February 16, 1372 (below) we find a text, with a narrative style very reminiscent
of the KRS. Only the opening of the letter uses an obligatory formulated expression required for the Kings of
Norway and Sweden. The rest of the letter appears to be a record of speech, very similar to the KRS. One can
imagine that this letter was written out quickly around a military campfire on a cold February day in the middle of
a harsh Swedish winter.

Fig. 3: Diploma x142, 16 February 1372.

“I, Tubbe Eriksson, greet most humbly with God King Magnus and King Hakon, with God’s
grace, kings of Norway and Sweden. I make known to you that I have left Örebro and I am now
abiding an answer to this letter if you want to have my service and want to give me any help in West
Götaland — to Norway I will not go— and I cannot wait long because I have many people. Whatever
you want me to do — make it known with this letter carrier. Indeed, I have other options, but will not
decide upon another before I hear your wishes. Written February 16, AD 1372. Sealed by Ludeke
Gerst.” [Tubbe Eriksson’s seal is not available.]

86 ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 27

 Runic Inscriptions in North America

Question #6. Could you discuss those events, which brought the KRS to the Swedish Historical
Museum in Stockholm in 2003?

Dr. Nielsen: In 2001, I contacted Thor Heyerdahl at his home in Santa Cruz de Tenerife in Spain and sent
him my paper on the KRS in the Journal of the West. Heyerdahl then set in motion a chain of events, which
brought the KRS to Sweden for investigation. Heyerdahl’s friend, Per Lillieström, contacted the Swedish journalist
Lars Westman, and asked him to visit me in Minnesota. On behalf of Vi Magazine we viewed the KRS at the
Runestone Museum in Alexandria, Minnesota, and traveled to the KRS discovery site and the Ohman farm.
After this visit, Westman contacted Professor Henrik Williams and the Swedish Historical Museum (SHM) in
Stockholm to facilitate bringing the KRS exhibit to Sweden. This well attended exhibit took place in 2003, after
which the stone was returned to the Runestone Museum in Minnesota.

Question #7. You have developed a new research technique involving 3-D imaging, which allows for
a precise determination of the markings which exist on the stone. Could you briefly describe this
procedure and discuss its importance for KRS research? What is the potential impact of this technology
on other North American runiforms?

Dr. Nielsen: Professor Henrik Williams and I are collaborating on interpretations of the results from 3-D
imaging. In May of 2008 he encouraged me to develop 3-D imaging for the KRS. It produces either Jpeg- or Tiff-
like photographs. Since an unlimited number of elevations, directions, and lighting positions can be proscribed,
thousands of angles can be examined until the best one is determined and recorded. This allows investigators
in Sweden, the United States and elsewhere, to view the same material in real time with the database secured
in a remote server. Many researchers would have access to these databases, once they were established. This
archive of runiforms would also help preserve the record against subsequent damage or future loss of the
artifact.

Fig. 4: Example of 3-D Imaging with rainbow colors to determine elevations and depressions

ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 27 87

Runic Inscriptions in North America

The so-called double dotted hooked X (^) for “ä” actually has one dot ( ) on the KRS - as determined by
3D-imaging. The right dot was used to mark the top of the hook in the a-rune and this was not observed in 1899
due to presence of mud in the hook when the KRS was first examined by Professor Curme. See Figure 5a-b,
below.
Fig. 5a-b: Two 3-D images (both sides of the
mathematical surface of the 3-D image data base)
of the first letter in PTIR (äptir = after) on the
th
6 line of the KRS. The photograph on the left
shows the projected surface and the photograph
on the right shows the visual surface we see. Note
what appears to be mud packed in the hook of the
rune. [Copyright 2009 © RN/RSM.]

Single dotted ä-runes like (å, ì ,and î) and

even a hooked ä –rune (ã) are found in Sweden
in the 17th century, so their appearance on the
KRS might date this single dotted KRS ä –rune
( ) to about 1600. (Gustavson, 1985:7).
Medieval manuscripts are often found with the
signs a@, â, á, ë or ê among others for the modern
ä.

Question # 8. What, if any, is the relationship of the Kensington Rune Stone to the expedition led by
Paul Knutson, which was purportedly sent to Greenland by King Magnus Eríksson in 1354?

Dr. Nielsen: There is no definitive evidence that the Paul Knutson expedition, commissioned by King Magnus
Eríksson in 1354, ever arrived in Greenland. There is a record of a ship returning from Greenland to Norway in
circa 1364 but this ship (knorr type) has never been conclusively identified.

The chief historical importance of this report lies in the evidence it provides of King Magnus’ interest in the
Greenland colony in the mid-14th century. It also shows that the Norse were capable of outfitting expeditions to
the New World and could possibly have conducted an expedition into the interior of North America in the 1360s.

Question # 9. Why is the Kingigtorssuaq inscription of Greenland included among the North American
runic corpus?

Dr. Nielsen: Greenland is certainly a part of North America, but the Kingigtorssuaq inscription is also unique
among the rune stones found in Greenland. It was carved by Icelandic traders about 1000 kilometers north of
Cape Farewell, the southern tip of Greenland, on Kingigtorssuaq Island just off the west coast in Baffin Bay.

Fig. 6: The Kingigtorssuaq inscribed stone, found near Upernavik, North Greenland in 1824 (Wahlgren, 1987).

88 ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 27

 Runic Inscriptions in North America
The evidence demonstrates, I believe, the use of numbers in combination with Arabic placement for purposes
of dating the year 1314. We start by assuming that the symbols (ö and ô) in front of line 1 and 2 respectively,
stand for the numbers 13 and 14 and perhaps the date 1314, as Thalbitzer (1951:12) suggested. If this is to be
confirmed by the medieval perpetual calendar we need at least two runes uniquely identified. This seems to be
reflected in the only specially designated two-letter word .ok. with two dots, as circled in red on the first line.
The same word appears as the first word on the second line, but is followed by a double-dotted word divider. If
the Kingigtorssuaq inscription is from 1314 then the Golden Year must be “o” and the first Sunday of the year
1314, was the 6th of January. This was designated “k” in the runic alphabet. This is only a confirmation that the
initial symbols (as marked in red) on line 1 and 2 could stand for 13 and 14 and that they could indicate a date
of 1314. It is not unambiguous since “ok” could stand for other dates as well. See Nielsen (2002: Appendix C) for
a further explanation.

Fig. 7: Latin Grave Slab, The Cistercian Cloister of Alvastra,

East Götaland, Sweden from 1414 (iÁiÁ ) (Gardell (1937: #360, 357-
8). The earliest Arabic placement date in Sweden is from 1414, as
seen in this figure.

Question # 10: In two articles from 1986 and 1987 you

argue that the Heavener Rune stone was written in the Elder
Futhork, which went out of use around the ninth century and
was replaced by the Younger Futhork. Does this mean that
the Heavener Stone dates to the 9th century or earlier? How
is it possible that the Vikings could have traveled so far into
the interior of North America, even before the establishment
of Vinland around the year 1000?

Dr. Nielsen: I would date the Heavener Rune stone to around

800-850 based on its language and runes. However, Professor
Williams has suggested the possibility that English born American
officers, stationed at U. S. Army’s Ft. Smith (about 50 miles from
Heavener) could have entered Indian territory and carved the
inscription while on a hunting party. Such officers would have had
a classical education, and might also have been familiar with the
Elder Futhark. The publications of Professor George Stephens,
an Englishman who published runic material in the 1860’s, could
possibly have been used by the carver of the stone. This must be
investigated further before we can authenticate the stone’s
provenance as a medieval artifact.

By the 9th century the navigational skills of the Vikings would have allowed them to reach the Straits of
Florida via the southern coastal currents (at an average speed of 2 knots/hr. from Baffin Island to the Florida
Straits at the Keys). Ingress via the Mississippi river and the Arkansas River basin would have given them easy
access to eastern Oklahoma via the Arkansas River (along the recognized trading route of the natives living
there at the time).

The northern Gulf Stream, whose currents approach near to the coast of Iceland, could have allowed a rapid
return to Iceland after leaving Gulf of Mexico and entering the Atlantic.

The language and runes of Heavener are much like the transitional runes on the Rök Stone in Sweden from
approximately the same time period (9th century). This stone has both the elder runes and younger runes and
fully records the transition. (Jansson, 1987: 31-37)

The above scenarios show that it was possible to get to Heavener from Greenland in 850 via ocean currents
from western Greenland along the east coast of North America, and around Florida to the Gulf of Mexico, to the

ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 27 89

Runic Inscriptions in North America
Mississippi river and into the interior of the North American continent. Further study is need on all aspects of this
inscription.
Question #11. In your view what needs to be done to further promote the study of North American
rune stones in an academic setting? What areas need to be the focus of study? What would you
recommend to someone who develops an interest in these stones and wishes to study them?

Dr. Nielsen: The Heavener and Kensington Rune stones should be studied by an academic team with
members having German and Scandinavian language background as well as a solid knowledge of geography,
history, and seafaring matters during the Viking Age and the medieval period. Background knowledge of the
history of Roman, pentadic, and Arabic numbers, and their use in writing dates would also be useful.

The newcomer should study linguistics and perfect his language skills. He/she should learn Old Swedish,
Old Norse and Old Danish. He/she should also familiarize himself/ herself with the various reference materials
in these languages, for instance the Old Swedish dictionary and its supplements, the Old Norse dictionary, and
the runic catalogues in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Familiarity with the diplomas in Norwegian, Swedish and
Danish is also desirable. For the earlier Middle Ages acquiring a working knowledge of the older dialects of
German, as well as Latin is a necessity. Anyone who does not have knowledge of at least one of the languages
of the runes, one modern Scandinavian language, and cannot read the different Futh
rks and Futhorks will not
be given credibility in academic circles, especially in the Scandinavian countries.

Interviewer: Thank for your time and for allowing me to conduct this interview. I hope we can continue this
arrangement in the future. Your list of references will be very useful for future investigations in the areas of
runology and epigraphy.

Comments on the Current State of Research

From Dr. Nielsen’s comments it should be clear that there is an urgent need for further academic research
on the runic inscriptions in North America. The academic community must recognize in these runic inscriptions
the potential evidence of pre-Columbian contacts between northern Europeans and the New World. No longer
can we permit these inscriptions to be written off as unworthy of academic interest, merely because past scholars
have prejudged them as the work of modern-day forgers. Each of these inscriptions must be researched and
systematically studied to establish whether they are authentic, and if so, determine what they can tell us about
medieval North America. If they are found to be hoaxes or forgeries, so be it. They remain worthy of study.

The 3-D imaging process developed by Dr. Nielsen has the capability of resolving many of the interpretive
problems encountered in the earlier scholarship, by verifying the actual markings on the runes. The controversies
over the “Grail Code” and the “dotted Rs” on the KRS demonstrate clearly the value of this technology in
clarifying the forms of disputed runes. The application of this new technology to all runic inscriptions – on both
sides of the Atlantic - has the potential to revolutionize the way we study these inscriptions. Runic databases
can, and should now be created, which, once established, would create worldwide interest in the study of
runology and epigraphy. These databases could be used as platforms of study for researchers and students,
who otherwise would be compelled to rely on photographs of the runes- a technology often proven to be unreliable.
The 3-D imaging allows us to establish precisely - once and for all - which markings on the rune stones are
authentic, and which ones are chance or aberrant markings. It is my hope that the academic community will
heed this call to action and begin the important work of researching and cataloging these runic inscriptions. Only
by verifying the orthography, language, and provenance of these runiforms in an academic environment, will we
finally be able to discover the truth about these important historical documents.

Note: For Dr. Nielsen’s views on other rune stones not discussed in this interview the reader is directed to
the bibliography below, and the following articles in this volume: “The Runes and Language of the Spirit Pond
Stones and the Narragansett Inscription Can be Found in Modern Books” ESOP 27 2009; “There is no Grail
Code on the Kensington Rune Stone.” ESOP 27 (2009); and “Theories on the Hooked X Presented in Epigraphic
Society Occasional Publications Vol. 26.” ESOP 27 (2009).

90 ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 27

 Runic Inscriptions in North America

Bibliography: Richard Nielsen

THE KENSINGTON RUNE STONE

Nielsen Richard. “The Arabic Numbering System on the Kensington Rune Stone.” ESOP 15
(1986): 47-61.
—. “New Linguistic and Runic Evidence which support’s Hall’s Thesis that the
Kensington Runestone is Genuine.”14th Lacus Conference, Toronto Lacus, Lake Bluff, Ill.,
1987.
—. “The Kensington Runestone: Part 2, Aberrant Letters. New Evidence from Greenland,
Iceland and Scandinavia.” ESOP 16 (1987): 51-83.
—. “The Kensington Runestone. Part 3: Linguistic Evidence for its Authenticity I.” ESOP 17
(1988): 124-78.
—. “The Kensington Runestone. Part 3: Linguistic Evidence for its Authenticity II.” ESOP 18
(1989): 110-32.
—. “Concerning the Kensington Runestone.” ESOP 23 (1998): 188-237.
—. “Richard Nielsen’s Reply to Questions from Dr. Knirk.” ESOP 23 (1998): 248-65.
—. “Early Scandinavian Incursions in the Western States: ‘8 Goths and 42 Norwegians on this
acquisition business far to the west from Vinland.’” Journal of the West 1 (2000): 72-86.
—. “Responses to Criticisms of Dr. James Knirk Concerning the KRS.” Scandinavian Studies 72
(2001). Online electronic supplement. 73.1 Spring 2002.
—. “Progress on the Kensington Runestone: Kensington Runestone Report 1998-2003.” ESOP 24
(2004): 68-98.
Nielsen, Richard and Scott Wolter. The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence.
Chanhassen, MN: Lake Superior Agate, 2006.
Williams, Henrik and Richard Nielsen. “The Stockholm Historical Museum’s Exhibition on the
Kensington Stone.” Appendix B in Nielsen and Wolter, 2006, 535-38.
—. Kensington Rune Stone. Translation presented to the Runestone Museum in Kensington, MN
in June, 2009.

OKLAHOMA

—. “The Runestones of Oklahoma.” ESOP 16 (1987): 183-95.

—. “An Old Norse Translation of the Heavener Runes.” ESOP 15 (1986): 133-41.

SPIRIT POND and NARRAGANSETT

—. “Name Roster on the Spirit Pond Rune Stones of Maine.” Unpublished manuscript. 1988.
—. “The Spirit Pond Runestones of Maine - A Proposed Dating and Tentative Translation.”
ESOP 21 (1992): 92-113.
——. “An Old Norse Translation of the Spirit Pond Runic Inscriptions of Maine.” ESOP 22
(1993): 156-216.

KINGIGTORSSUAQ

—. “The Kensington Runestone and Evidence in Eirikskrönikan, Mid-14th Century Diplomas

and the Kingigtorssuaq Inscription.” in Barry Hanson, The Kensington Runestone – A
Defense of Olof Ohman, the Accused Forger. Kearney, NE: Morris, 2002. “Appendix D.”

Additional References for Interview

Brøndum-Nielsen, Johannes. Dialekter og Dialektforskning. Copenhagen: Schultz, 1927.

Gardell, Sölve. (1937) Gravmonument från Sveriges Medeltid: Part I Text; Part II Photographs.

ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 27 91

Runic Inscriptions in North America
Doctorial Thesis, Göteborg. Published Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets
Akademien: Stockholm, 1945-46.
Gustavson, Helmer and Sven-Göran Hallonquist. Runor i Dalarna. Stockholm: Runverket, 1985.
Hall, Robert A., Jr. The Kensington Rune-Stone is Genuine. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam, 1982.
—. The Kensington Rune-Stone: Authentic and Important. Lake Bluff, IL: Jupiter, 1994.
—. “Attestation as Evidence in Language History.” ESOP 23 (1998): 238-41.
—. “Narrative Cohesion in the Kensington Runic Text.” Ch. 38 in: The Emergence of the
Modern Language Sciences: Studies on the transition from historical- comparative to
structural linguistics in honor of E.F. K., Vol 2: Methodological perspectives and
applications. eds. Sheila Embleton, John E. Joseph and Hans-Joseph Niederehe.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 255-64.
Hanson, Barry J. “The Kensington Runestone – Physical Features, Past and Present.” Journal of
the West 40 (2001): 68-80.
—. Kensington Runestone: A Defense of Olaf Ohman the accused Forger. 2 vols. Kearney, NE:
Morris, 2002.
Heyerdahl, Thor and Per Lillieström. Ingen Grenser, Oslo: Stenersens, 1999.
Holand, Hjalmar Rued. Explorations in America before Columbus. New York: Twayne, 1956.
—. A Pre-Columbian Crusade to America. New York: Twayne, 1962.
Jansson, Sam. “Svensk Paleografi.”in Brøndum-Nielsen, Johannes Palæografi A: Danmark og
Sverige. Copenhagen: Schulz, 1943. 82-134.
Jansson, Sven B. F. Runes in Sweden, trans. Peter Foote. Värnamo, Sweden: Gidluns, 1987.
Jansson, Sven B.F. and Elias Wessén. Gotlands Runinskrifter Part I, Vol.12 in the Swedish runic inscription
series, Sveriges runinskrifter, Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets, Historie och Aktikvetets Academien, 1962.
Johnson, Rakel. Skrivaren och Språket. Götaborg: Götaborg Universitet, Instutionen för svenska språket, 2003.
King, David. The Ciphers of the Monks: A Forgotten Number-Notation of the Middle Ages.
Stuttgart, Germany: Steiner, 2001.
Knirk, James E. “Review of Robert Hall: The Kensington Rune Stone, Authentic and Important:
A Critical Edition.” Scandinavian Studies 69 Winter, 1997.
—. “Umlauted Runes on the Kensington Runestone.” Scandinavian Studies 73 (2001): 210-14.
Lithberg, Nils and Elias Wessén. Den Gotlänska Runkalendern 1328. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och
Aktikvetets Academien Handlingar, del 45: 2, 1939.
Löfvendahl, Runo, et al. “Comments on Scott Wolter’s Report on the Kensington Stone, dated
2003.10.18.” Swedish Heritage Department, Stockholm. Report made for the Runestone
Museum, Alexandria, Minnesota and the Swedish Historical Museum, Stockholm, 2004.
—. Private e-mail communications to RN in July and August 2008.
Nielsen, Karl Martin. “Problemet om Nordboer I Nordamerika Før Columbus.” Årbøger for Nordisk Old Kyndighed
og Historie. Copenhagen: 1950. 73-90.
Noreen, Adolf. Altschwedische Grammatik. Halle: Niemeyer, 1904.
Noreen, Erik . Fornsvensk Läsebok. ed. Sven Benson, 2nd rev. ed. Stockholm, 1954
Norsk Språk Historie (Norwegian Language History), Vol. 1, University Press, Oslo.
Olsen, Magnus. (1941-1959) Norges Innskrifter med de Yngre Runer, Oslo: (1941) Vol. 1, [1-89]; (1951) Vol. 2,
[90-179]; (1954) Vol. 3, [180-270]; (1957) Vol. 4, [271-449]; (1959) Vol. 5, [450-598].
Popper, K.R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. 11th rev. ed. New York: Harper, 1983.
Riksarkivet (1953-2008) Svenskt Diplomarium 1356-1376. The years 1361-2, 1363-4, 1371-2, and 1372-4 are
found in biannual volumes and 1366-June 1368, and July 1368 -69 in multiyear volumes. Stockholm, 15
volumes. 1377 is due this year.
Rosander, Göran. “Ennagrammaton i Rätan: En classisk chifferskrift in folklig användning.”
Svenka Landmaal och Svenkt Folkliv 99 (1976):1-26.
Skard, Vermund (1973) Norsk Språk Historie, University Press, Oslo.
Skrzypek, Dominika. The Decline of Nominal Inflection in Old Swedish — The Loss of the
Dative Case. Nordlund 26. Lund: Institutionen för nordiska språk, 2005.
Snædal, Thorgunn. Medan världan vakar. Uppsala: Uppsala University. Institutionen för
nordiska språk, 2002.
Söderwall, Fredrik Knut. Ordbok öfver svenska medeltids-spåket. Stockholm: Lund, 1926-73.
—. Svensk Språkets Lagar. Stockholm: Beijers, 1883.

92 ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 27

 Runic Inscriptions in North America
Stephens, George (1866-68) The Old-Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and England. Vol. I (1866-67), Vol. II
(1867-68). John Russell Smith and Michaelsen and Tillge: London and Copenhagen.
Thalbitzer, Johannes.“Two Runic Stones from Greenland and Minnesota.” Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection
116, 3: (1951): 1-71.
Uldaler, Nelly and Gerd Wellejus. Gammel Dansk Læsebog. Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1968.
Wahlgren, Erik. The Kensington Stone-A mystery Solved. Madison, WI: University Press, 1958.
—. The Vikings and America. Thames and Hudson: London, 1986.
Weiblen, Paul. “Report to the Board of the Runestone Museum on my Involvement in Studies of the Kensington
Runestone.” University of Minnesota, June 26, 2008.
—. “Report on the Mineralogical Characterization of the Kensington Rune Stone.” in Barry J.
Hansen, Kensington Runestone: A Defense of Olaf Ohman the Accused Forger.
Kearney, NE: Morris, 2002.
Winchell, Newton Horace. “The Kensington Rune Stone.” Minnesota Historical Society, Dec. 6,
1909, Read before the Society, St. Paul. MN, Dec. 13, 1909. St. Paul, MN. See Weiblen
(2002: Appendix 1)
Wolter, Scott. “Kensington Rune Stone Investigation: Preliminary Report (#10-01120).” St.
Paul: American Petrographic, 2001.
—. “The Geology of the Kensington Rune Stone,” St. Paul, MN: American Petrographic,
2003: 10.18. (2004: 4.1 revised).
—. “Response to Runo Löfvendahl’s Comments on Wolter’s Report on the Kensington Rune
Stone.” Alexandria, MN: Runestone Museum, October 7, 2004.
—. “The Hooked X.” ESOP 26 (2008): 17-19.
—. The Hooked X: Key to the Secret History of North America. St. Cloud, MN: North Star,
2009.
Zimmermann, Larry J. “Unusual or “Extreme” Beliefs about the Past, Community Identity, and
Dealing with the Fringe.” Ch. 3 in Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging
Descendent Communities. Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T.J. Ferguson, eds. Lanham,
MD: Alta Mira, 2008.

ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 27 93