The Kensington Runestone: Approaching a Research Question Holistically by Alice Beck Kehoe

The Kensington Runestone: Approaching a Research Question Holistically Reviews

• 
  Michael Smith

  Kehoe is one of the very few professional archaeologists willing to argue with the orthodox position regarding the possibility of Europeans in the interior of North America before the 16th century -- and it says something about the more common rigidity of scientific thinking that she had to go to such an obscure publisher to get this short book published. A great deal has been written about the runestone discovered by a Minnesota farmer in 1898, very little of it at all objective. In fact, the usual doctrine has been that Olaf Ohman obviously must have faked the stone, since it was already known in advance that there were no Norse fur-trappers in the neighborhood in 1362, and evidence to the contrary must therefore be false. This a priori nonsense is very bad science indeed and it has been driving me crazy for a long, long time. I’ve been reading in the field of pre-Columbian exploration since college in the ’60s and the “No Europeans Before Columbus” principle that American historians adhere to so slavishly has seriously impeded research, from the Smithsonian on down. Taking the “pro” position on this issue, in fact, can lose you your job. The author does an excellent job describing the psychological mechanism behind this problem, and the role played by myth-making in American history, and the fact that nearly everyone involved has turf to protect. She goes at the question from all angles, pointing out how many new discoveries in linguistics, for instance, have come out in favor of the runestone’s authenticity, and drawing parallels between Kensington and the major discoveries by the Ingstads at L’Anse-aux-Meadows -- which also were loudly denounced as fraudulent, until the sheer amount of clear evidence made that assumption no longer tenable. A first-rate study in a longstanding historical problem.
• 
  Scott Frank

  A persuasive and well-written monograph, that actually succeeded in changing my mind about something I thought I knew.
  
  Very briefly, Kehoe argues in favor of the runestone’s authenticity. But she doesn’t jut mention recent research on the stone to persuade, she also talks of the stones’ modern history, and it’s historiography (i.e., the social aspects of the historians and others who declared it fake), as well as showing other cultural and biological anthropological evidence that indicates that the presence of the Norse in Minnesota fits into a number of established archaeological datum.
  
  I have a Ph.D. in anthropology, but rarely read within the field anymore. On a stop at the Kensington Runestone museum, I picked up this book (I had heard of Kehoe, and was passingly familiar with her work, but didn’t realize she’d written on the runestone). I was very pleasantly surprised by how good the book was, and would absolutely use it in an introductory anthropology class, to help show the students the difference between anthropological research and reasoning, and that used by historians and other social scientists.
  
• 
  Lea

  This was fascinating. I’ve know about the Runestone since an early episode of Scott Wolter’s tv show and been interested. I learned about Kehoe from another tv episode of maybe Expedition Unknown (?) and wanted to read more about her take on this interesting piece of history. The larger concepts of how we are prevented from new knowledge because of the status quo and upholding Eurocentric ideals and American uniqueness seems obvious after reading Kehoe discuss it.
  This is surprisingly easy to read and understand despite being more of a professional paper.
• 
  Emily

  ~2.5 stars
• 
  Debbi

  Kehoe argues that modern examination of the runestone found in Kensington, MN in 1898 demonstrates that weathering, dendrition from the roots surrounding it and other decomposition of the engravings are consistent with the markings having been made in the mid 14th century. Additionally, medieval rune writings found in the past 100 years encompass those found on the stone. In her estimation the preponderance of evidence weighs in favor of the authenticity of the stone.
  
  I appreciated that Kehoe included historical evidence as well as anthropological and archaeological
  information to support her conclusions, rather than simply relying on a single discipline to prove her ideas. The book is easy to read and understand.
• 
  Hawkgirl

  A short book but very thorough with its conclusions, which are well substantiated.