394 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1953 



the tree at about 60 years when the stone was found in 1898, simple 

 subtraction takes us back to a time in the latter part of the 1830's, i. e., 

 to a time several years before the white colonization of Minnesota 

 began. This being so, we are told, the stone with its inscription must 

 be genuine. 



Against this the critics argue, and justly, that the details of the story 

 of the find were formulated so long after the event that one can hardly 

 be sure of their correctness. Next, and likewise justly, that the esti- 

 mation of the age of the tree, long since disappeared, depends upon 

 arbitrary judgment. For example, if the tree was only 30 or 40 years 

 old, that would bring us well within the first colonization period. 

 Thus there is no proof to be had here. 



2. The inscription expression: ^Hhis island.^'' — The finding place is a 

 bank situated in a depression that dried up long ago. There is a 

 possibility that 500 years ago this depression was a lake, over which 

 the bank rose as an island. If this can be substantiated geologically, 

 and if simultaneously it can be shown that there was no lake in the 

 nineteenth centurj'^, this would be evidence in favor of the stone's 

 genuineness. The question cannot be said to have been clarified so 

 far, however. 



3. Inscription technique. — It signifies nothing that the chiseling of 

 the runes is quite different from the picking technique of the Nordic 

 Viking-age runic stones (whose characters are cut with the point down 

 to a rounded base). But one thing is of interest: the patina of the 

 letter H, dating from 1908, on the foot of the stone. If it takes 40 years 

 to produce a slight patina, it is permissible to conclude that full patina 

 can be produced in the course of about 70 or 80 years. Therefore, if 

 the runes are genuine, i. e., about 500 years old, the patina of course is 

 easily explained ; if they are false, say 80 or 70 years old, the patina 

 may nevertheless have been laid in that period. In other words, the 

 proof which the defenders of the inscription would derive from the 

 patina of the runes is no proof. 



J^.. Other -finds. — On Mr. Holand's finds of iron weapons and fire 

 steels in northern Minnesota, and of "mooring holes," see below. These 

 finds are well worth considering, but to a critical judgment can scarcely 

 provide more than some slight support for the authenticity of the 

 Kensington inscription, but no proof. 



I now call upon the Scandinavian philologists. At my request three 

 Danish scholars have given opinions : the runologist Erik Moltke, the 

 linguist Harry Andersen, and the linguist Karl Martin Nielsen. The 

 contributions of the first two are published in Danske Studier, 1949-50. 

 (For further contributions, see list of references at end of text.) Niel- 

 sen's opinion follows here in summarized form : 



