This is the Minnesota Historical Society's own MNopedia reference article on the Kensington Runestone, summarizing both the scholarly runological rejection of its claimed fourteenth century origin and the stone's continued popular reception in Minnesota. Its strength is that it is a state historical society's vetted reference article, giving a concise and accurate account of the mainstream scholarly consensus. Its limit is that it is a summary encyclopedia entry rather than the original runological scholarship itself, so a claim needing the technical linguistic argument for the runestone's modern origin needs the underlying scholarly studies that this article summarizes.
Facts
Citation
AuthorMinnesota Historical Society (MNopedia)
PublisherMinnesota Historical Society
Publication Year2018
URLhttps://www.mnhs.org/mnopedia/thing/kensington-runestone
Source Typeencyclopedia
Assessment
Reliability Tier2
The Minnesota Historical Society's own vetted MNopedia reference article, a state historical society's summary encyclopedia entry rather than the original runological scholarship it summarizes, hence the middle tier. NotesState historical society reference article; summarises the runological rejection and the stone's reception.
Claims Backed By This Source (23 claims)
This source backs 23 claims across the atlas. As facts: 15 well-attested, 1 scholarly debate, 2 popular myth - corrected. As cited relationships: 3 holds. Plus 2 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.
Disposition By Topic
- Artifacts & Relics, 8 claims: 3 well-attested, 2 popular myth - corrected, 2 holds, 1 general references.
- Sources, 8 claims: 8 well-attested.
- Articles, 4 claims: 4 well-attested.
- Custodians & Museums, 3 claims: 1 scholarly debate, 1 holds, 1 general references.
Popular myth - corrected
2Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.