(letterhead)
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
SCHOOL OF FORESTRY * ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
February 13, 1967
Mr. Theodore C. Blegen
1588 Northrop Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108
Dear Ted:
I was interested in have your letter of January 25 regarding the Kensington Rune stone and learning that all was well with you and that you were going as strong as ever. Your interest in certain aspects of the rune stone placement certainly indicates tha there is no let-down as far as your interests are concerned.
I discussed the question raised in your letter of January 25, regarding the flattening of the roots of the tree beneath which the rune stone was reported to have been found, with a number of our staff members. All agree that there could not possibly have been any flattening of the roots in the short period involved, if it was placed under the tree in August 1898 and removed in November 1898. It is possible to determine from ring counts and measurements the number of years since a root has come in contact with any stone or other growth-impeding obstructions. The time that such flattening started can then be determined by a simple ring count, from the surface back to the point at which such flattening first commenced.
However, to indicate that there are certain suspicious souls on the School of Forestry staff, I Quote from Dr. Scott Pauley: "Of course the roots may have benn flattened by contact with another stone or stones that were removed when the rune stone was planted."
The qotes from Egolfs Bakuzis, and Johy Haygreen are also included for whatever they may be worth.
I suspect that none of this will prove truly determining or will contribute much towards determining the authenticity of the rune stone. I am certain that had the roots of the poplar, probably trembling aspen or Populus tremuloides, been examined at the time the rune stone was removed that it would have been possible to tell whether it had been "planted" or whether the tree had grown over and around it. I have never read of any detailed examination of the tree roots by a botanist or other interested individual.
When I first received your inquire I was about to reply to the effect that if the roots were flattened, then there could be no question but that the contact with the rune stone had been in effect for a considerable nunber of years. How many, of course would depend upon the degree of flattening, location of the stone and roots, etc. Hower Scott Pauley's suspicious mind also causes me to be somewhat more cautious. An individual with the interest in and the ability to prepare a rune stone might also spend considerable time digging beneath trees to locate suitable rocks which might be removed and replaced with a "plant." The possibility of this would of course be influenced by the nature of the soil or area. If the area was very rocky the possibility of such an occurence would be greater than if this was prairie soul with no rocks in the area.
Please excuse this rather rambling reply to your inquiry. Give me a ring if there are items in this which would be of interest and worth further discussion.
With besst personal regards and greetings.
Sincerely yours,
F. H. Kaufert
Director
mjw
enc
"How about the effects of grazing, wind and others on the form of roots? Who examined the roots of the aspen tree? How well is it documented?"
Bakuzis
"The roots certainly aren't going to flatten in two months but what did they mean by flattened? Are there any pictures or diagrams of what the roots were like. I can't see that this would shed much light -- except to show it wasn't planted in 1898."
Haygreen
(MHS - Blegen papers)
Get your own Free Home Page