Ohio History Journal

  • 1
  •  
  • 2
  •  
  • 3
  •  
  • 4
  •  
  • 5
  •  
  • 6
  •  
  • 7
  •  
  • 8
  •  
  • 9
  •  
  • 10
  •  
  • 11
  •  
  • 12
  •  
  • 13
  •  
  • 14
  •  
  • 15
  •  
  • 16
  •  
  • 17
  •  
  • 18
  •  
  • 19
  •  
  • 20
  •  
  • 21
  •  
  • 22
  •  
  • 23
  •  
  • 24
  •  
  • 25
  •  
  • 26
  •  

Book Reviews

Book Reviews

 

 

 

The Kensington Stone: A Mystery Solved. By Erik Wahlgren.

(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1958. xiv+228p.; illustra-

tions, bibliography, and index. $5.00.)

Few artifacts of American history have aroused as much interest as

the Kensington stone. This stone with its runic inscriptions, supposedly

discovered by a Minnesota farmer in 1898, has been the subject of

several books by Hjalmar Holand. No American scholar has taken

the trouble to examine in detail the case which Holand has presented,

although many have expressed scepticism. Scandinavian runologists

have unanimously agreed that the stone is a forgery, but their writings

are largely unknown in the United States. In the face of all criticism,

Holand has maintained his position, oftentimes not meeting the argument

or else simply dismissing those who disagreed with him as willful men

intent on undermining his findings. Erik Wahlgren of the University

of California at Los Angeles has now investigated the famous stone

from the point of view of runology, geology, and history, and his

findings should bring an end to any tendency to accept the stone as an

authentic artifact dating from 1362.

The author shows that the leading rune experts, led by Professor

Sven B. F. Jansson of the University of Stockholm, have rejected the

inscriptions on sound bases. Letters, the spelling of certain words, and

even some of the words are inconsistent with the usages of Scandinavians

in the fourteenth century. The inscription blends Swedish and Nor-

wegian in a manner common in the Norwegian-Swedish communities

of Minnesota, gives details which contrast with the laconic nature of

medieval runic inscriptions, contains no abbreviations characteristic of

early inscriptions, and, unlike authentic inscriptions, does not contain

a single name.

The author has made an exhaustive investigation of the facts sur-

rounding the discovery of the stone. The result is an undermining of the

assertions made by Holand as to the precise date of discovery, the size

of the stone, the use of the stone as a doorstep, and the role of various

Kensington citizens in bringing the stone to public attention.