Alan Crozier
2006-01-18 22:03:17 UTC
<please snip radicallly if you wish to reply>
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
When I started reading this book, I was decidedly skeptical
about the authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS), so it
might seem surprising when I say that the best chapter in this
book is the one entitled "Scandals in Scholarship." This
documents the arrogance, errors, carelessness, and even
dishonesty of many scholars who have tried to prove that the
inscription is a hoax. This chapter eloquently demonstrates that
anyone who wants to challenge the arguments presented by Nielsen
and Wolter on the geology and linguistics of the stone will have
to meet very high standards of scholarly behavior.
Other good chapters in this study treat the discovery of the
stone and Wolter's geological examination. The chapter on the
language and runes of the KRS is copiously illustrated with
evidence that the forms of the KRS runes were known in Gotland
in the 14th century; this chapter also includes a lucid
explanation of Easter dating tables. There is a thorough
scrutiny of the Sarsland letters and the Gran tapes, and of
letters and documents connected with the Ohman family. Other
very useful parts of the book are a well-illustrated timeline
for the KRS, biographies and photographs of people connected
with the stone (and some not connected in any way, such as
Bernard of Clairvaux and Jacques de Molay). The book also has a
chapter on the ownership of the KRS, appendices, a bibliography,
and an index.
If the book had consisted just of these solid and serious parts,
and if it were reprinted in a slimmer version with all the
typographical errors corrected as a courtesy to the reader, this
would be a weighty plea in favor of authenticity and an
exoneration of Olof Ohman. Any scholars wishing to refute the
powerful arguments would have to present even more powerful
arguments for a reinterpretation of the geological and
linguistic evidence. In my opinion, the evidence CAN be
interpreted in other ways, but Nielsen and Wolter have
undoubtedly made the task more delicate and challenging. I
gladly leave that job to someone else.
One chapter that could have been omitted from the book is
entitled "My Experience with the Kensington Rune Stone." I felt
a certain unease as soon as I opened the book at this chapter,
for the simple reason that the word "my" in a page header
conflicts with the fact that this is a book with two authors. I
wondered, why not "our" experience with the KRS? This chapter is
by Scott Wolter alone, although he is not named specifically as
the author. This account is interesting enough and could well
have been published as a separate book. But its 138 pages
scarcely fit the description "Compelling New Evidence" in the
book's subtitle. It is too personal and anecdotal for that, and
by occupying a quarter of the book it causes a serious
imbalance. Is co-author Richard Nielsen's experience with the
KRS not worthy of similar treatment? I would prefer to see
Wolter's chapter replaced by a greatly expanded version of
Nielsen's Appendix C, "The Language of the Kensington Rune
Stone." This is a mere six pages in tabular form, with brief
references to negative assertions, countered by equally brief
references to the medieval examples that Nielsen has found of
all the allegedly modern forms on the KRS. This evidence could
have been presented in detail, with proper quotations from the
medieval documents showing the full contexts. This would have
been a great service to any reader interested in the language of
the inscription, and it would have made the book into the
definitive source book on the KRS and an extremely hard-hitting
all-round vindication of the stone.
Unfortunately for the cause of the KRS, however, the authors
have included a chapter which offsets almost all the good work
they have done. It is entitled "The History of Gotland and the
Teutonic Knights" and it is about supposed Templar codes and
symbols. Now, elsewhere in the book Nielsen and Wolter have set
up very strict requirements of any evidence AGAINST the
authenticity of the KRS. For example, they fill a page with
quotes from witnesses on Walter Gran's credibility and on this
basis dismiss the evidence of the Gran tapes as the fictions of
an envious "bullshitter." Another example: Henry Hendrickson
wrote in a letter to Johan Holvik that he and Ohman spoke of
figuring out something that would bother the brains of the
learned, but Hendrickson did not want his name to be used. Scott
Wolter says: "as far as I was concerned, if Hendrickson was not
willing to allow his testimony to be part of the public record,
it was worthless" (p. 382).
Reading the chapter on the Teutonic Knights, I find that the
authors apply a much less exacting standard to their own
evidence. So much here is based on claims which are not part of
the public record. Instead we have poorly documented speculation
about secret knowledge. The first worrying thing is that there
is not a single reference to any serious historical work on the
Templars or the Teutonic Knights, but there are references to
imaginative works such as Baigent et al., "The Holy Blood and
the Holy Grail" and Laurence Gardner, "Bloodline of the Holy
Grail." This is a bit like presenting a hypothesis in astronomy
based solely on some bestsellers about astrology. The claim that
the Templars learned mathematical secrets and esoteric Eastern
religious beliefs in the Holy Land is not backed by any
evidence. To allege that this occult knowledge was subsequently
passed on to the Teutonic Knights is to pile speculation upon
speculation. No facts are cited to support the assertions that
these chivalrous orders were master masons and cathedral
builders. The authors accept Gardner's erroneous notion that the
architectural style was called Gothic from a Greek word meaning
magical. They quote a work on freemasonry from 1905 or 1871
(both dates are given for Pike's book), claiming that before
Jacques de Molay, grand master of the Templars, was executed, he
created four Masonic lodges in the gloom of his prison. Another
astounding but unsupported statement is: "Eastern mysticism
captivated the Knights Templar, particularly what they learned
from the Druids in Lebanon." Here the authors put unquestioning
trust in sources that are every bit as untrustworthy as Walter
Gran. What has happened to their critical judgment?
The authors seem to place great faith in "The Templars' Secret
Island" by Haagensen and Lincoln, whose "premise is that
Bornholm was used as a base for the Knights Templar in the
crusade against Estonia. Their proof [sic] of Templar influence
is in the fantastic mathematics used in laying out the churches,
particularly the round ones, on Bornholm" (p. 98). A map is
reproduced on p. 104, showing a seven-pointed star superimposed
on a map of Bornholm. It can just as easily be read as proof of
the willingness of Haagensen and Lincoln to see a pattern where
none exists. A similar willingness is seen in the authors' own
interpretation of special punch marks on the KRS as a coded
message from the carver.
On page 117 we read: "The Cistercian-Templars are known to have
been a force in the Baltic in 1362." This is not known at all,
but seems to be based on an identification of Cistercians (who
were active) and Templars, who did not exist in 1362 because the
order had been dissolved by the pope fifty years previously.
That little snag is quickly dismissed (p. 109): "It is hard to
imagine that the Templars even missed a beat in Sweden." But is
there any evidence for the claim that there were ever Templars
in Sweden at all? No historians seem to know of it.
Some other claims here seem far-fetched. A portrait of St.
Bernard, founder of the Cistercians and sponsor of the Templars,
is reproduced because the authors read the folds in his sleeve
as the letter M, "an ancient symbol for wisdom." Other claims
are uncheckable because no source whatever is given. Where are
the clams from Klagen [Skagen?] in north Jutland that must have
come with ships from New England in the 13th and 14th centuries?
Who discovered that beaver furs aboard Basque ships 1380-1420
were bailed [i.e. baled] in the Canadian fashion? Why are the
excellent standards of documentation followed in the rest of the
book totally abandoned here?
Speculation abounds in this chapter. On page 115 there is a
picture of a grave slab (G 344) from Gotland showing an extended
S rune with a horizontal bar making it into a cross. The authors
call this "a cross of Templar design," although of course it
need not be that at all, and then ask "Could this crest be
symbolic of the Templar sword and the chalice?" A perfectly
reasonable answer would be "No." On page 118 we see the X rune
with an umlaut that appears on the KRS in the word "läger"
meaning "camp." The authors ask, "could this be a reminder of
Christ's resting two nights in the grave chamber?" Again, a
perfectly reasonable answer would be "No," but the way these
speculations are veiled in rhetorical questions is likely to
influence the kind of reader who believes that Dan Brown's "The
Da Vinci Code" is based on fact.
We are told that Columbus was steeped in Templar lore. Perhaps,
but where is the evidence? A signature of Columbus happens to
have an X that can be likened to the hooked X rune seen not only
on the KRS but also on the Spirit Pond rune stones (confidently
dated by the authors to "circa 1400"). The authors speculate
that Columbus may even have learned of the Kensington party on
his visit to Iceland in 1477, yet the history-loving Icelanders
made no record of any such party, nor did anyone else. The
fourth line of Columbus's signature has an unexplained XMY,
similar to three runes on the KRS with special punch marks. "Did
Columbus see this sequence?" Almost certainly not. Anyway, it
can hardly be called a "sequence," as the three runes do not
stand together on the stone. They appear in that order, but
separated by many runes. And the punch marks might not be
deliberate.
On page 130 the authors write: "There is no mistake that the
Knights Templar and Cistercians firmly believed they were in
possession of supernatural knowledge based on the fantastic
mathematics derived from the pentagon. This was their secret,
and explains their fervent belief in the rightness of their
cause." After a discussion of the pentagon and the Golden Mean,
the authors state on the following page: "Knowing that some
members of the Teutonic Knights used the Golden Mean..." Again
sheer speculation with no evidence, only a reference to
Haagensen and Lincoln. Note also the silent change of the
subject. On page 130 there is "no mistake" that the TEMPLARS
knew all this; on page 131 the authors "know" that the TEUTONIC
KNIGHTS used the Golden Mean. The Teutonic Knights were not the
Templars, yet the assumption that the Templars possessed secret
knowledge which was passed on to the Teutonic Knights is now
presented by the authors as solid fact. It is not, and nothing
can conceal that this is all based on imagination.
I think that the authors have also lessened the impact of the
chapter entitled "The Conclusion" with their Post-Script on the
La Vérendrye Stone. Instead of being a conclusion summing up the
evidence previously presented, this introduces fresh
speculation. It starts reasonably enough by describing the
burial of lead plaques by the La Vérendrye party, as a French
land claim, and the authors postulate - again, quite
reasonably - that the KRS could be a similar land claim. So far
so good. But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana, and this
circumstance leads the authors into speculation once again. The
script was identified as "Tatarian" by a Jesuit. Without
questioning how much French Jesuits in 1743 actually knew about
"Tatarian" script, the authors compare a script from Siberia and
find a similarity to runes. They advise keeping an open mind
about the origin of the stone "because both the Cistercians and
the Teutonic Knights were in close contact with the Mongols in
Russia during the 1200s." Yet the only specific example they
give of such contact is that the Teutonic Knights and the Poles
were defeated in battle in 1240 by the Mongols at Lieglitz
(actually Liegnitz). Earlier (p. 123) the authors mention the La
Vérendrye Stone because, when it was brought back to Paris, it
was sent to Count Maurepas, church warden of St. Sulpice (a
place well known to readers of "The Da Vinci Code"). The
existence of a gilded AVM plaque in St. Sulpice seems to be
sufficient for the authors to see a connection between the La
Vérendrye Stone and the KRS. No attempt is made to link all
these coincidences in a plausible scenario, understandably,
because it would all require a remarkable conspiracy involving
Templars, Teutonic Knights, Mongols, and Jesuits. What is the
point of bringing up the La Vérendrye Stone at all? Since we
know absolutely nothing about this lost stone, its relevance as
evidence for the KRS is nil.
I have devoted a lot of space to just one chapter and the
post-script to the Conclusion, because this differs so much in
character and quality from all the other chapters where the
authors ably present the case for the KRS with hard facts, sober
scrutiny of the evidence, and solid, well-documented arguments.
The chapter of which I am most critical is supposed to contain
"the most compelling proof of all." No matter how many times the
authors use the word "compelling," this particular evidence
fails to compel me, and I wonder how two hard scientists like
Nielsen and Wolter can believe all this.
Scott Wolter commented on a draft of this review and rightly
pointed out that, on page xv of the Introduction, the authors
stress "that there are two distinct aspects to this book": the
factual evidence and the speculation. This was a deliberate
choice, and the reader is duly warned. For me, however, it gives
the book a Jekyll and Hyde character. I fear that the chapter on
the knights' codes will be the point in the book where serious
scholars give up. With this chapter the authors may actually
have damaged the cause of the KRS. They have done a lot of
serious work in their attempt to affix a certificate of
authenticity to the stone, but they have ended up simultaneously
placing a conspicuous sign beside it, warning off everyone
except already convinced believers and the growing numbers of
people taken in by the fiction of Dan Brown and similar
speculative bestsellers about the Templars and the Holy Grail.
Review of: Richard Nielsen and Scott F. Wolter, The Kensington
Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence (Minneapolis: Lake Superior
Agate Publishing, 2005). xvi + 574 pp. Illustrated. ISBN
1-58175-562-7. www.kensingtonrunestone.com
When I started reading this book, I was decidedly skeptical
about the authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS), so it
might seem surprising when I say that the best chapter in this
book is the one entitled "Scandals in Scholarship." This
documents the arrogance, errors, carelessness, and even
dishonesty of many scholars who have tried to prove that the
inscription is a hoax. This chapter eloquently demonstrates that
anyone who wants to challenge the arguments presented by Nielsen
and Wolter on the geology and linguistics of the stone will have
to meet very high standards of scholarly behavior.
Other good chapters in this study treat the discovery of the
stone and Wolter's geological examination. The chapter on the
language and runes of the KRS is copiously illustrated with
evidence that the forms of the KRS runes were known in Gotland
in the 14th century; this chapter also includes a lucid
explanation of Easter dating tables. There is a thorough
scrutiny of the Sarsland letters and the Gran tapes, and of
letters and documents connected with the Ohman family. Other
very useful parts of the book are a well-illustrated timeline
for the KRS, biographies and photographs of people connected
with the stone (and some not connected in any way, such as
Bernard of Clairvaux and Jacques de Molay). The book also has a
chapter on the ownership of the KRS, appendices, a bibliography,
and an index.
If the book had consisted just of these solid and serious parts,
and if it were reprinted in a slimmer version with all the
typographical errors corrected as a courtesy to the reader, this
would be a weighty plea in favor of authenticity and an
exoneration of Olof Ohman. Any scholars wishing to refute the
powerful arguments would have to present even more powerful
arguments for a reinterpretation of the geological and
linguistic evidence. In my opinion, the evidence CAN be
interpreted in other ways, but Nielsen and Wolter have
undoubtedly made the task more delicate and challenging. I
gladly leave that job to someone else.
One chapter that could have been omitted from the book is
entitled "My Experience with the Kensington Rune Stone." I felt
a certain unease as soon as I opened the book at this chapter,
for the simple reason that the word "my" in a page header
conflicts with the fact that this is a book with two authors. I
wondered, why not "our" experience with the KRS? This chapter is
by Scott Wolter alone, although he is not named specifically as
the author. This account is interesting enough and could well
have been published as a separate book. But its 138 pages
scarcely fit the description "Compelling New Evidence" in the
book's subtitle. It is too personal and anecdotal for that, and
by occupying a quarter of the book it causes a serious
imbalance. Is co-author Richard Nielsen's experience with the
KRS not worthy of similar treatment? I would prefer to see
Wolter's chapter replaced by a greatly expanded version of
Nielsen's Appendix C, "The Language of the Kensington Rune
Stone." This is a mere six pages in tabular form, with brief
references to negative assertions, countered by equally brief
references to the medieval examples that Nielsen has found of
all the allegedly modern forms on the KRS. This evidence could
have been presented in detail, with proper quotations from the
medieval documents showing the full contexts. This would have
been a great service to any reader interested in the language of
the inscription, and it would have made the book into the
definitive source book on the KRS and an extremely hard-hitting
all-round vindication of the stone.
Unfortunately for the cause of the KRS, however, the authors
have included a chapter which offsets almost all the good work
they have done. It is entitled "The History of Gotland and the
Teutonic Knights" and it is about supposed Templar codes and
symbols. Now, elsewhere in the book Nielsen and Wolter have set
up very strict requirements of any evidence AGAINST the
authenticity of the KRS. For example, they fill a page with
quotes from witnesses on Walter Gran's credibility and on this
basis dismiss the evidence of the Gran tapes as the fictions of
an envious "bullshitter." Another example: Henry Hendrickson
wrote in a letter to Johan Holvik that he and Ohman spoke of
figuring out something that would bother the brains of the
learned, but Hendrickson did not want his name to be used. Scott
Wolter says: "as far as I was concerned, if Hendrickson was not
willing to allow his testimony to be part of the public record,
it was worthless" (p. 382).
Reading the chapter on the Teutonic Knights, I find that the
authors apply a much less exacting standard to their own
evidence. So much here is based on claims which are not part of
the public record. Instead we have poorly documented speculation
about secret knowledge. The first worrying thing is that there
is not a single reference to any serious historical work on the
Templars or the Teutonic Knights, but there are references to
imaginative works such as Baigent et al., "The Holy Blood and
the Holy Grail" and Laurence Gardner, "Bloodline of the Holy
Grail." This is a bit like presenting a hypothesis in astronomy
based solely on some bestsellers about astrology. The claim that
the Templars learned mathematical secrets and esoteric Eastern
religious beliefs in the Holy Land is not backed by any
evidence. To allege that this occult knowledge was subsequently
passed on to the Teutonic Knights is to pile speculation upon
speculation. No facts are cited to support the assertions that
these chivalrous orders were master masons and cathedral
builders. The authors accept Gardner's erroneous notion that the
architectural style was called Gothic from a Greek word meaning
magical. They quote a work on freemasonry from 1905 or 1871
(both dates are given for Pike's book), claiming that before
Jacques de Molay, grand master of the Templars, was executed, he
created four Masonic lodges in the gloom of his prison. Another
astounding but unsupported statement is: "Eastern mysticism
captivated the Knights Templar, particularly what they learned
from the Druids in Lebanon." Here the authors put unquestioning
trust in sources that are every bit as untrustworthy as Walter
Gran. What has happened to their critical judgment?
The authors seem to place great faith in "The Templars' Secret
Island" by Haagensen and Lincoln, whose "premise is that
Bornholm was used as a base for the Knights Templar in the
crusade against Estonia. Their proof [sic] of Templar influence
is in the fantastic mathematics used in laying out the churches,
particularly the round ones, on Bornholm" (p. 98). A map is
reproduced on p. 104, showing a seven-pointed star superimposed
on a map of Bornholm. It can just as easily be read as proof of
the willingness of Haagensen and Lincoln to see a pattern where
none exists. A similar willingness is seen in the authors' own
interpretation of special punch marks on the KRS as a coded
message from the carver.
On page 117 we read: "The Cistercian-Templars are known to have
been a force in the Baltic in 1362." This is not known at all,
but seems to be based on an identification of Cistercians (who
were active) and Templars, who did not exist in 1362 because the
order had been dissolved by the pope fifty years previously.
That little snag is quickly dismissed (p. 109): "It is hard to
imagine that the Templars even missed a beat in Sweden." But is
there any evidence for the claim that there were ever Templars
in Sweden at all? No historians seem to know of it.
Some other claims here seem far-fetched. A portrait of St.
Bernard, founder of the Cistercians and sponsor of the Templars,
is reproduced because the authors read the folds in his sleeve
as the letter M, "an ancient symbol for wisdom." Other claims
are uncheckable because no source whatever is given. Where are
the clams from Klagen [Skagen?] in north Jutland that must have
come with ships from New England in the 13th and 14th centuries?
Who discovered that beaver furs aboard Basque ships 1380-1420
were bailed [i.e. baled] in the Canadian fashion? Why are the
excellent standards of documentation followed in the rest of the
book totally abandoned here?
Speculation abounds in this chapter. On page 115 there is a
picture of a grave slab (G 344) from Gotland showing an extended
S rune with a horizontal bar making it into a cross. The authors
call this "a cross of Templar design," although of course it
need not be that at all, and then ask "Could this crest be
symbolic of the Templar sword and the chalice?" A perfectly
reasonable answer would be "No." On page 118 we see the X rune
with an umlaut that appears on the KRS in the word "läger"
meaning "camp." The authors ask, "could this be a reminder of
Christ's resting two nights in the grave chamber?" Again, a
perfectly reasonable answer would be "No," but the way these
speculations are veiled in rhetorical questions is likely to
influence the kind of reader who believes that Dan Brown's "The
Da Vinci Code" is based on fact.
We are told that Columbus was steeped in Templar lore. Perhaps,
but where is the evidence? A signature of Columbus happens to
have an X that can be likened to the hooked X rune seen not only
on the KRS but also on the Spirit Pond rune stones (confidently
dated by the authors to "circa 1400"). The authors speculate
that Columbus may even have learned of the Kensington party on
his visit to Iceland in 1477, yet the history-loving Icelanders
made no record of any such party, nor did anyone else. The
fourth line of Columbus's signature has an unexplained XMY,
similar to three runes on the KRS with special punch marks. "Did
Columbus see this sequence?" Almost certainly not. Anyway, it
can hardly be called a "sequence," as the three runes do not
stand together on the stone. They appear in that order, but
separated by many runes. And the punch marks might not be
deliberate.
On page 130 the authors write: "There is no mistake that the
Knights Templar and Cistercians firmly believed they were in
possession of supernatural knowledge based on the fantastic
mathematics derived from the pentagon. This was their secret,
and explains their fervent belief in the rightness of their
cause." After a discussion of the pentagon and the Golden Mean,
the authors state on the following page: "Knowing that some
members of the Teutonic Knights used the Golden Mean..." Again
sheer speculation with no evidence, only a reference to
Haagensen and Lincoln. Note also the silent change of the
subject. On page 130 there is "no mistake" that the TEMPLARS
knew all this; on page 131 the authors "know" that the TEUTONIC
KNIGHTS used the Golden Mean. The Teutonic Knights were not the
Templars, yet the assumption that the Templars possessed secret
knowledge which was passed on to the Teutonic Knights is now
presented by the authors as solid fact. It is not, and nothing
can conceal that this is all based on imagination.
I think that the authors have also lessened the impact of the
chapter entitled "The Conclusion" with their Post-Script on the
La Vérendrye Stone. Instead of being a conclusion summing up the
evidence previously presented, this introduces fresh
speculation. It starts reasonably enough by describing the
burial of lead plaques by the La Vérendrye party, as a French
land claim, and the authors postulate - again, quite
reasonably - that the KRS could be a similar land claim. So far
so good. But the French not only buried inscribed plaques, they
also discovered an inscribed stone in Montana, and this
circumstance leads the authors into speculation once again. The
script was identified as "Tatarian" by a Jesuit. Without
questioning how much French Jesuits in 1743 actually knew about
"Tatarian" script, the authors compare a script from Siberia and
find a similarity to runes. They advise keeping an open mind
about the origin of the stone "because both the Cistercians and
the Teutonic Knights were in close contact with the Mongols in
Russia during the 1200s." Yet the only specific example they
give of such contact is that the Teutonic Knights and the Poles
were defeated in battle in 1240 by the Mongols at Lieglitz
(actually Liegnitz). Earlier (p. 123) the authors mention the La
Vérendrye Stone because, when it was brought back to Paris, it
was sent to Count Maurepas, church warden of St. Sulpice (a
place well known to readers of "The Da Vinci Code"). The
existence of a gilded AVM plaque in St. Sulpice seems to be
sufficient for the authors to see a connection between the La
Vérendrye Stone and the KRS. No attempt is made to link all
these coincidences in a plausible scenario, understandably,
because it would all require a remarkable conspiracy involving
Templars, Teutonic Knights, Mongols, and Jesuits. What is the
point of bringing up the La Vérendrye Stone at all? Since we
know absolutely nothing about this lost stone, its relevance as
evidence for the KRS is nil.
I have devoted a lot of space to just one chapter and the
post-script to the Conclusion, because this differs so much in
character and quality from all the other chapters where the
authors ably present the case for the KRS with hard facts, sober
scrutiny of the evidence, and solid, well-documented arguments.
The chapter of which I am most critical is supposed to contain
"the most compelling proof of all." No matter how many times the
authors use the word "compelling," this particular evidence
fails to compel me, and I wonder how two hard scientists like
Nielsen and Wolter can believe all this.
Scott Wolter commented on a draft of this review and rightly
pointed out that, on page xv of the Introduction, the authors
stress "that there are two distinct aspects to this book": the
factual evidence and the speculation. This was a deliberate
choice, and the reader is duly warned. For me, however, it gives
the book a Jekyll and Hyde character. I fear that the chapter on
the knights' codes will be the point in the book where serious
scholars give up. With this chapter the authors may actually
have damaged the cause of the KRS. They have done a lot of
serious work in their attempt to affix a certificate of
authenticity to the stone, but they have ended up simultaneously
placing a conspicuous sign beside it, warning off everyone
except already convinced believers and the growing numbers of
people taken in by the fiction of Dan Brown and similar
speculative bestsellers about the Templars and the Holy Grail.
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
