The "Myth" of the Kensington Stone

Abstract

tion, which Milo M. Quaife sets out to demolish in the December issue of the NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY,1 has been debated by a host of scholars both European and American for a quarter of a century, and involves the consideration of many highly technical phases of the subject as well as the circumstances regarding the stone in situ. Much of both evidence and speculation have been advanced on both sides of the question; with the clarification of many of the moot points, critical opinion seems gradually to be turning toward acceptance of its authenticity.2 Mr. Quaife's indictment of the stone constitutes the most ambitious attack on the inscription in recent years, or at least since the collation of all the important evidence in my book, The Kensington Stone. In the interest of historical research it is, however, regrettable that Mr. Quaife has chosen to write of the subject in such an acrimonious vein and to interject so much caustic personalia. Certainly the most rigid scrutiny of every fact should be made; it would hardly seem, however, that so many and such sedulous insinuations as Mr. Quaife indulges in regarding the competence and integrity of students (such as the members of the Minnesota Historical Society committee) who have been impressed by the authenticity of the stone, will conduce to that impartial and scholarly scrutiny.