Fact Check: Kensington Runestone labeled a 19th-century hoax, unlike Ontario find

Fact Check: Kensington Runestone Labeled a 19th-Century Hoax, Unlike Ontario Find

What We Know

The Kensington Runestone, discovered in Minnesota in 1898, has long been regarded by scholars as a 19th-century hoax. This stone is inscribed with runes that purportedly tell the story of a Norse exploration of North America. However, extensive analysis has led to a consensus among historians and archaeologists that it was likely created as part of a myth-making effort during a time when interest in Viking history surged in the United States, particularly following the publication of Carl Christian Rafn's Antiquitates Americanae in 1831, which fueled a fascination with Norse exploration (source-3, source-7).

In contrast, a newly discovered runestone in Ontario, Canada, has been described as a potentially authentic artifact. Found in 2015, this stone features 255 runes and an image of a boat, and researchers have indicated that it is not a forgery like the Kensington Runestone. Instead, it is believed to have been carved by a Swedish individual, likely in the 19th century, but its authenticity is supported by the context of its discovery and the nature of its inscriptions (source-1). The Ontario runestone is considered a "remarkable find" and may even be the oldest runestone discovered in North America, dating back to a time when Swedish settlers were present in the region (source-1).

Analysis

The claim that the Kensington Runestone is a 19th-century hoax is well-supported by a variety of scholarly sources. The consensus among archaeologists and historians is that the stone was created during a period of heightened interest in Norse history, and its inscriptions do not hold up to rigorous scrutiny (source-5, source-7). In contrast, the Ontario runestone's discovery is backed by a more careful examination of its context and inscriptions, which have been linked to known historical practices among Swedish settlers in North America (source-1, source-3).

The reliability of the sources discussing the Kensington Runestone is high, as they come from established archaeological reviews and historical analyses. The New York Times article discussing the Ontario find also includes commentary from credible experts in the field, such as Kristel Zilmer, a runologist from the University of Oslo, and Henrik Williams, a professor at Uppsala University, both of whom lend significant academic weight to the findings (source-1).

Conversely, some sources that challenge the authenticity of the Ontario runestone, such as Jason Colavito's blog, may carry a bias against such discoveries, often framing them within a narrative that dismisses new findings as hoaxes without thorough investigation (source-3). This highlights the importance of evaluating the credibility and potential biases of sources when analyzing claims about historical artifacts.

Conclusion

The claim that the Kensington Runestone is a 19th-century hoax, while the Ontario find is not, is True. The Kensington Runestone has been widely discredited by experts as a product of myth-making in the 19th century, while the Ontario runestone is being investigated as a potentially authentic artifact linked to Swedish settlers. The contrasting evaluations of these two stones underscore the complexities involved in the study of historical artifacts and the importance of rigorous scholarly analysis.

Fact Check: Kensington Runestone labeled a 19th-century hoax, unlike Ontario find