In my analysis, I have tried to limit myself to such errors as where the statements presented in the piece are in contradiction with the facts. In most cases, the correct information is given in such basic texts on the runestone as Blegen and the Minneso

In my analysis, I have tried to limit myself to such errors as where the statements presented in the piece are in contradiction with the facts. In most cases, the correct information is given in such basic texts on the runestone as Blegen and the Minnesota Historical Society 1910 report on the stone.

In some few cases, there might be some argument as to whether the statement given is in error, or the source of information (such as Wahlgren on Holand's influence on the MHS report) may have been flawed, and the author(s) forgiven for accepting the argument without verification. Even if such mistakes are eliminated from this analysis, both the quantity and importance of the remaining errors is overwhelming.

There may, of course, be other factual errors that I have missed, and certainly other more subjective arguments presented by the author(s) (such as the knowledge of runes being 'widespread') might not stand exacting scrutiny. Such discussions go beyond the purely factual analysis of this critique.

I would like to take a somewhat deeper look at the types of errors presented, and the lack of scholarship exemplified by each, ranking them from least to most severe.

1. Proofreading errors, such as giving incorrect names and dates, or poor citations, could easily have been avoided had the author(s) given even minimal attention reviewing their work. These are rather minor, but the number of them show poor scholarship and sloppy craftsmanship.

2. Facts which are incorrect but do not affect the nature of the argument, such as substituting Alexandria for Kensington, or saying Ohman did not know English. Such errors cannot be overlooked as mere writing mistakes - the author(s) did not thoroughly check their facts during the preparation of the article

3. Errors of substance, such as John Gran having given first hand evidence, or that Ohman knew runic writing. Such errors indicate that the author(s) did not have a clear grasp of the material, and did not conduct proper research before writing the article. Such errors must cause the objective reader to invalidate the particular points being made, and throw doubt on the overall conclusion of the piece.

4. Falsification of evidence, such as Winchell saying there was a lack of patina, or that the tree was five years old. These errors are the most egregious, as they deal with fundamental issues which given clear representation support the opposite argument than that which is presented. Hopefully this is simply a matter of academic ineptitude, but unfortunately some consideration must be given to whether the author(s)' bias may have allowed them to manufacture evidence that suited their purpose.

I expect the former to be far more probable, that the author(s) were in too great a rush to give adequate care to the subject, and allowed their memories to play tricks with what they knew. In either case, however, the author(s) should be censured for their mishandling of a supposedly objective report.

The Smithsonian, as publisher and editor of this piece must bear some of the responsibility as well. Perhaps it was just misplaced trust in the author(s), but ultimately it falls on their shoulders to maintain the academic honesty of their publication. Obviously, any article containing over 30 errors in 3 pages must be considered to have major faults. Scholastic concerns require that some attempt be made to rectify the situation.

In a somewhat broader issue, it appears that the Smithsonian has judged the Kensington stone to be a forgery. The Institute is, of course, entitled to present such an opinion. My main concern, based on the arguments presented in the article, is that they are doing so on corrupt and possibly biased data. If the main arguments against the stone are those as presented in the article, then I might suggest a reexamination of the artifact is in order.

Is there someone to whom I might present my concerns in this regard?

I thank you for you time in looking into this matter. I hope that some means may be found to rectify the situation without too much trouble.

Yours,

Michael Zalar