Tim, et al.
OUCH (wince, cringe)
I sympathize with your abused feelings, although I have never had my
qualifications so harshly impugned.

Regarding the (in)famous Rune Stone.  Alice Kehoe chaired a session at the
2000 Joint Midwest Archaeological/Plains Anthropological Conference in St.
Paul in November about the stone.  Three of the presenters were ardent
supporters of the authenticity of the stone.  The fourth presenter was a
chemical analyst who gave the most informative talk.  His company was
actually allowed to take a core of the stone for analysis and also to
analysize the carvings.  (I don't remember his name and they didn't print it
in the bulletin, but maybe someone else remembers it.)  Anyway, he said
their tests to date have only confirmed that the stone itself was a very old
granite glacial erratic.  Also that, yes the carvings were old but they
could not determine 'how old' since there will need to be patination studies
and comparisons with other similar granite stones (gravestones were
suggested).

The gist of his discussion was further studies were going to be made but
nothing could be said for either arguement.  Soooo, I'll stick my neck out
and say they didn't convince me it was made by Vikings.  Scandinavians
probably, but when?

And there will always be people who have their own experts and references to
confirm their beliefs.  Regarding my previous message about the Fantastic
Archaeology course.  It was truly amazing how many of the same sources (von
Daniken in particular) were quoted as references for the various
"archaeological" and "historical" legends.
D. Stubbs

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Tumberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 4:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: lawyerly discourse


Greetings,

Below is a copy of an off-list response I received regarding my recent post
about the Kensington Runestone. I wasn't too surprised to hear someone
taking
issue with my comment about the stone having been debunked, but I must admit
that I was rather taken aback by the tone. I actually thought I was just
sharing an amusing little anecdote. The response does seem to tie in to
an earlier remark on the thread regarding the way archaeological credentials
are challenged. Considering that I have never met the person who sent it,
he seems to know an awful lot about my "lack of credentials." I'm sure my
former and current professors will be dismayed to learn that they have been
unable to teach me anything about good academia, but that I continue to
display my arrogance, ignorance and chutzpah.

Because I have no particular desire to exacerbate a flame-throwing session,
I have not included the individual's name or email address. The person who
sent the message is not a member of this list, but my original post was
forwarded by someone who is. I am curious as to the list-member's
motivation.
Were you aware the message was going to a potentially explosive personality?
I hope I'm not out of line in suggesting some discussion about what is
appropriate
to share with those off the list. Until now, I have naively assumed that
the list is a forum for rational scholarly debate. I'll certainly be more
careful from now on. At any rate, perhaps I'm too thin-skinned, but I feel
kind of bad about being lambasted in this manner. If anyone has a similar
story to share, my misery would love company.

Polemically yours,
Tim Tumberg


 I am always amazed at the arrogance and Chutzpah of so many of the
debunkers.
I wonder where they get their "expertise"??????My grandparents grew up
within
20 miles of Ohman's farm but I do not claim any special position nor divine
inspiration as a result.....I'm just a semi- retired lawyer with a BS degree
fom NDSU and a JD degree fom Michigan who studies Viking matters as a hobby.
BOTH PRO AND CON RE AUTHENTICITY. Frankly I am appalled at the ignorance
spewed out with such authority as by Tumberg.
 Have you read the debunked and inaccurate publications by Birgitta Wallace
or Erik Wahlgren? Is Tumberg aware of the 1994 publications by the eminent
linguist from Cornell Prof Robert A. Hall or the work of Dr Richard
Nielsen.(See
his article in the January 2000 issue of the Journal of the West)....Or
for that matter of Thor Heyerdahl who stated in his new book Ingen Grenser
"There exists not the slightest concrete evidence that the Kensington
Runestone
is false." Finally is he aware of the present laboratory studies of the
stone and the antiquity of the carvings (Studies which should have been
made long ago BEFORE the debunking started)? What does he say about the
studies of Winchell et al back in 1910 which concluded the Stone and its
engravings were of great antiquity?
 I get upset when I read of things like Tumberg's Comments and wonder why
they feel such nonsense is necessary. For me as with Heyerdahl neither side
has established their case and all the evidence needs to be reviewed by
a panel without pre-conceived notions.....that further study is needed AND
SHOULD NOT BE DISCOURAGED AND THAT POLEMICISTS SUCH AS TIM TUMBERG ARE NOT
GOOD ACADEMICIANS.


*****************************
Timothy A. Tumberg
Department of Anthropology
Emil W. Haury Building
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721