Skip to main content

Kensington Stone

Kensington-runestone flom-1910.jpg

I'm curious: are there any believers in the authenticity of the Kensington Stone among active archeologists?

This is a runestone allegedly unearthed in the neighborhood of Kensington, Minnesota in 1898.

The inscription says that it was left there by Scandinavian explorers, "Vikings" if you will, on an expedition in the 14th century.

Although there is solid evidence for Norse settlements along the northeastern coast of the US and the Maritime Provinces of Canada, there is no OTHER evidence (aside from this stone) that they ever got anything like THAT far west.

One is naturally inclined to think that such an outlier is a fraud.

But I'd like to know if it is still an open question. 


Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryJuly 26, 2019 at 4:47 AM

    Of course they got that far west. If they hadn't, then how could we have the Minnesota Vikings?

    Seriously, why did Minnesota choose that name for its football team? Is there some connection between the state and the Vikings? (Not that I really care.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. ChristopherJuly 26, 2019 at 6:59 AM

    In the mid 19th century there was apparently a disastrous crop failure in Norway. Lots of Norwegians headed to America, most of them at first settling in Illinois and Wisconsin, because cheap farmland was available and the soil was amenable to the same crops that grow in Scandinavia. A westward move of much of that population into Minnesota (and to some degree to Dakotas) came later in the century, because for some odd reason the original inhabitants of the area conveniently disappeared around that time.

    The prevalence of Andersons, Olsons, etc. in the upper Plains led to the adoption of team names like the Vikings. And if you believe the Kensington Stone is a fraud, you might also posit that a sense of ethnic identification was a part of the motivation for it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
7 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
13 comments
Read more