versions are very similar. The following is the complete translation as it appears in
Stephen Williams’ Fantastic Archaeology on page 197:
Prepared by Vincent J. Meckstroth
The Kensington Rune Stone Translation:
Although many translations of the original runic
inscription exist, all of the
versions are very similar. The following is the complete translation as it appears in
Stephen Williams’ Fantastic Archaeology on page 197:
8 Swedes and 22 Norwegians on exploration journey from Vinland westward. We had camp by 2 rocky islets one day’s journey north from this stone. We were out and fished one day. After we came home found 10 men red with blood and dead. AVM save from evil.
Have 10 men by the sea to look after our ships 14 days’ journey from this island. Year 1362.
The historical account:
In November 1898 a Swedish immigrant named Olof
Ohman was clearing an area of land on his farm near Kensington, Minnesota when, while
uprooting a tree, a large, tablet like stone was apparently found tangled in the roots.
Today this stone is known by archeologist and laymen alike as the Kensington Rune Stone.
The find initially was said to prove that a Viking expedition around 1362 arrived in that
spot and carved the runic text found on the face and on one side of the stone. The find
had such a great impact that it sparked a great debate about the stone’s authenticity
among scholars in all reaches of the globe, especially in Scandinavian Europe and the
United States.
From the start, questions arose about the circumstances of the find. Questions regarding the shape of the roots around the stone as it came out of the ground, the age of the tree in which it was encased, how the Viking expedition arrived in Minnesota in 1362, and, especially important, the style and time period of the text itself were commonly asked. Upon close inspection, many scholars immediately deemed the stone a hoax based on linguistic context, claiming that grammatically the text could not have been from the 1300’s. Still, one man, Hjalmar Holand, added fuel to the issue by supporting its authenticity as he went on to devote much of the rest of his life to defending claims and convincing people that the stone was authentic. Thus, the controversy began. Today, among most professional archeologists, the Kensington Stone is considered a hoax, however, many continue to defend its authenticity. The following is an introduction to several researchers on both sides of the argument, their findings and conclusions, and other answers to questions about Viking exploration of the Midwest in the 1300’s.
The Kensington ControversyMr. Holand’s Authenticator
Hjalmar Holand is almost single handily responsible for keeping the
Kensington Rune Stone controversy alive well after many prominent scholars deemed the
stone a simple hoax. In 1907, Holand, a social historian attempting to write an article on
the "History of the Norwegian Settlement of America," purchased the stone from
Olof Ohman and published the first of many accounts defending the authenticity of the
stone in 1909 (Williams, 1991, pg. 195). Holand’s inquiries sparked a new series of
investigations including an April 21, 1910 Minnesota Historical Society committee report
which decided favorably on the stone’s authenticity on the one condition that a
specialist on Scandinavian languages would lend his endorsement (Williams, 1991, pg. 196).
According to Holand, as written in his book, Norse Discoveries and Exploration In
America: 982 1362, Professor Gisle Bothne of the University of Minnesota was asked to
perform the inspection, but was unable to accept as he intended to go away for the summer,
but added that he did not feel that the stone was authentic simply because of one rune
that was not used properly (1940, pg. 106). Without having appointed another, several
years passed before the committee finished compiling its final decision specialist
(Holand, 1940, pg. 107). Finally, in 1915 the committee did announce, however, "after
carefully considering all the opposing arguments, the Museum Committee of the Society, and
Mr. Holand, owner of the stone, believe its inscription is a true historical record"
(Williams, 1991, pg. 198).
When Hjalmar Holand died in 1963, two men, Ole G. Landsverk and Robert Hall became very active in defending the authenticity of the stone. Landsverk’s work initially coincided with Holand’s, but later Landsverk derived other theories involving secret messages hidden within the Runic text itself (Williams, 1991, pg. 203). In the 1980’s, it was Hall who defended much of Holand’s research from a linguistic approach (Williams, 1991, pg. 204). In his book, the Kensington Rune-Stone Is Genuine, Hall concludes that much of the runic text is only derivable from around the year 1362, and no one could have possibly carved the stone in or around the year 1898, when many feel that the stone was carved (1982, pg. 90). In short, the combined works of these three men, along with countless others, provide a seemingly educated, scholarly viewpoint about the origins, purpose, and authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone from around the time of it’s initial find right up until present day.
Pertinent Research Sources:
Websites devoted to the stone’s authenticity:
The Kensington Hoax:
The Kensington Rune Stone would not be a controversial topic if believers in the stone’s authenticity did not have opposition. Without the research and theories as developed through good archeology by scholars like Erik Wahlgren, Theodore Blegen, and Birgitta Wallace, just to name a few, the real truths regarding the authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stones might never have been exposed. Wallace, in particular, has surfaced countless reasons, proofs, and understandings that all point specifically to a hoax, furthermore, inferring Ohman as having something to do with the inscription directly. She points out that Holand attempted to ‘cover up’ the true Olof Ohman by personifying him as an "ignorant backwoods farmer, totally incapable of conceiving a runic inscription" (Wallace, 1982, pg. 60). However, Wallace points out that evidence of Ohman’s interest in the Vinland Expeditions come in the form of discovered newspaper clippings found in a scrapbook of Ohman’s (Wallace, 1982, pg. 60). Additionally, Ohman’s intelligence misconception would have been an easy hoax in itself because the Swedish born immigrant never became proficient in English, thus making him seem as if he were a poorly educated farmer, typical of the day. However, Wallace points to several letters and other manuscripts written by Ohman in Swedish which demonstrate his skillful mastery of words when using his native language. Interestingly enough, many of these passages, which were written in a Swedish Halsingland dialect, actually show consistencies in Ohman’s writings and the runic text on the stone (Wallace, 1982, pg. 60) Further research into the life of Olof Ohman show that his first trade was as a mason, not a farmer which he became much later in his life (Blegen, 1968, pg.9).
Literally, hundreds of other questions surround the Kensington story exist, many of which Wallace ‘debunks’ in her article Viking Hoaxes, which appeared in Vikings in the West, a collection of papers by various respectable archaeological authors. Questions concerning how the stone got under the tree, how old was the tree, and of what era is the runic text really from have all been asked by inquiring minds. Not surprisingly, people on both sides of the argument have always been able to derive some sort of answer, but, as part of the conclusion to his book, The Kensington Stone, A Mystery Solved, Wahlgren offers a sufficient explanation based on his good archeological research that effectively answers many of those questions ( 1982, pg. 179-181).
Although unknown to many laymen inquisitors, the Kensington Stone is not the only supposed Norse find in the Midwestern United States. For example, Wallace estimates that about sixty-nine artifacts, mainly weapons like axes, halberds, spears, and swords, have been claimed to be found in the Midwest (Wallace, 1982, pg. 64). While some claim that these are legitimate finds, in every case a logical explanation can easily be found through some simple research. One of the more amusing items found and thought to be authentic are about 30 small halberds found throughout the United States (Wallace, 1982, pg. 64). It is said that Hjalmar Holand first indicated the connection between the halberds and their supposed Norse origin. After a little research Wallace confirms that halberds were not made or used in Scandinavia in the 1300’s, and, not stopping there, Wallace’s research shows that the halberds are actually novelty items used to cut tobacco as part of an advertising program for Battle-Ax Tobacco Company (Wallace, 1982, pg. 65). Incidentally, all the halberds were manufactured by Rogers Iron Company of Springfield, Ohio in the nineteenth-century (Wallace, 1982, pg. 65). As can be clearly seen, any sort of ‘discovery’ that people have found and defended as authentic proof of Norse exploration into the North American Midwest can easily be proven either a mistake, a false interpretation, or a hoax.
Pertinent Research Sources
Websites devoted to the hoax argument:
To Continued Research . . .
It should be pointed out that this briefing has by no means attempted to offer a complete understanding of the Kensington Rune Stone controversy or has by no means provided a complete investigation regarding Norse exploration of the Midwest. Additionally, it should be so noted that topics like the swords of Sutherland, Iowa and the mooring holes of Minnesota and of other surrounding areas are not covered. Further information on these artifacts are available in the Wallace article. Likewise, a discussion of the rout that the possible Viking expedition might have used to arrive in Minnesota or why there has not been a trail of artifacts discovered that would indicate where that trail might be has not been addressed. Birgitta Wallace’s article, Vikings in the West, addresses some of these questions further. For more information, many more books by Hjalmar Holand, Alf Monge, Sven Jansson, and Erik Moltke (to name just a few) might be a good place to start. Otherwise, many of the websites listed above are fast and easy places to gather much of this information. Good luck and happy hunting.
| Main | Outline | Brief | Brief Schedule | Debunking Tools | Video Guides | Projects | Final |
larry-zimmerman@uiowa.edu
University of Iowa Anthropology
10/12/98