A Minnesota Mystery: The Kensington Runestone

[TallGeekyGirl]

(WCCO) It's one of Minnesota's greatest mysteries. It's something that puts settlers in America well before Columbus. A Minnesota geologist thinks the controversial Kensington Runestone is the real thing and there is evidence that he says backs up the theory.

http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_231002032.html

[lynnejanet]

That's a pretty cool story, even without the Knights Templar theory. It doesn't sound like the stone has been studied in any really serious way by a reputable institution. Maybe with this latest evidence, someone will take a serious look at it. It's kind of interesting that it's "amateurs" who are doing the most research on it.

[TallGeekyGirl]

I agree. Some of the greatest archaeological discoveries have been made by amateurs and non-scientists. Belzoni, Schliemann, the skiiers who found the Ice Man, farmers turning up mammoth bones, etc.

It is pretty cool. My pop grew up in the area (Carlos, just north of Alexandria where the stone is now), so when we went back to visit we'd stop into the museum and see it. I remember seeing a picture of Olof standing next to it in the field where he claimed to have found it, with the overturned tree and tree roots growing around it. Fake or not, and I certainly have no way of knowing, I like it and I'd like it to be real. I thought that some scientists from Britain studied it a few years ago and were leaning toward calling it authentic, but that could just be a fanciful memory of mine.

[ganzfeld]

The sole basis of the supposed Templar connection is the link between a rune shape and a cross shape which they claim to be a Templar cross. But the Templars were very widespread and powerful during the time in question so it seems very flimsy proof. A lot of cross shapes can be connected to the Templars. (That's just my initial reaction. I'm willing to see their evidence that it is definitely a Templar cross.) These researchers go the next step of suggesting the Templars were in exile or escaping persecution in North America and that just seems to be a bit of fanciful elaboration on what is probably a bit of an evidence stretch to begin with. This is the danger: You make up a story (intentionally or not) and find evidence to prove it. That's what a lot of pseudo-archeologists do. I'm not saying that's what these researchers are necessarily doing but the signs are all there. The supposed date just happens to be around the time that the Templars were disbanded so it seems likely that they are just getting way ahead of the evidence with their imagination and only recognizing the clues that support their (completely unlikely) story. For me, quotes like these don't inspire confidence in the objectivity of a scientist:

"If it's the Templars that were under religious persecution at the time, that would be a pretty good reason to come over here," Wolter figured.

The code is another thing that comes up often in both pseudo-archeology and in the study of this particular object. Lots of people in the past have found a code in the object. Of course, they found what they were looking for because once you have an idea of what kind of message you want to find, it's easy to trick yourself into thinking that's what's there. So it's just another red flag that's going to make their suggestions harder to swallow, and for good reason. Usually the biggest mistake is in computing the mathematical probability of a code. If you plot several variables, depending on how you do it, it's not that unlikely to come up with what seems to be an "amazing" result, especially if you have one you're looking for beforehand. So it is very important to get independent and completely blind confirmation from mathematicians who do not know where the data came from or what it represents. Again, quotes like this make me extremely suspicious that, indeed, it isn't a coincidence at all but simply another case of finding what you're looking for in a complex data set:

"When we plotted these three things we got a year, 1362. It was like 'oh my god is this an accident? Is this a coincidence?' I don't think so," Wolter said.

There is one more sign in the article that this science might be faulty, another common fallacy that even good scientists can make: limiting the possibilities and coming to conclusions based on that limitation: "It can't be A, therefore it must be B." Well, no, there are 24 other letters in the alphabet. In other words, they may possibly be limiting their choices to either "1910 hoax" or "14th century artifact". Actually, it may have one of any number of other origins, some of which have already been proposed but are often ignored by people who want to jump to the conclusion that it's from 14th century North America. Is that what these researchers are doing? Well, again, quotes from the article suggest to me that this is exactly what they are doing:

In 2000 he performed one of the very few geological studies on the stone. He says the breakdown of minerals in the inscription shows the carving is at least 200 years old, older than Olof Ohman. Those findings support the first geological study in 1910 that also found the stone to be genuine.

In other words, evidence that the carving is older than Ohman is interesting but, even if it withstands scientific scrutiny, it does not in any way mean that the article must be a 14th century item made in Minnesota. There are many many other possibilities. Again, when the conclusions are fairly obviously flawed, it doesn't inspire confidence in the evidence that is supposed to support them.