Back to top

Kensington Runestone

  • Cite
  • Share
  • Correct
  • Print
Front view of the Kensington Runestone

The Kensington Runestone, front view, ca. 1920.

The Kensington Runestone is a gravestone-sized slab of hard, gray sandstone called graywacke into which Scandinavian runes are cut. It stands on display in Alexandria, Minnesota, as a unique record of either Norse exploration of North America or Minnesota’s most brilliant and durable hoax.

Minnesota historian Theodore Blegen wrote in 1968 that “few questions in American history have stirred so much curiosity or provoked such extended discussions” as the Kensington Runestone. There are two uncontested facts. Swedish immigrant Olof Ohman came to Douglas County, Minnesota, in 1879. While clearing land on his farm near Kensington in the fall of 1898, he turned up a slab of rock with symbols carved on the side and underside. These markings were later identified as Scandinavian runic writing.

The generally accepted translation of those runes reads: “We are 8 Goths [Swedes] and 22 Norwegians on an exploration journey from Vinland through the West. We had camp by a lake with 2 skerries [small rocky islands] one day’s journey north from this stone. We were out and fished one day. After we came home we found 10 of our men red with blood and dead. AVM [Ave Virgo Maria, or Hail, Virgin Mary] save us from evil. We have 10 of our party by the sea to look after our ships, 14 days’ journey from this island. Year 1362.”

If the inscription is genuine it places Norse seafarers deep in the North American continent 130 years before Columbus reached the West Indies, and tells a story otherwise unknown.

The details of the stone’s geology, discovery, carving, and weathering, and the personality, education, writings, and possessions of its finder have been dissected, analyzed, and debated for more than a century. There are four main controversies over the stone’s authenticity.

The first controversy centers on the plausibility of the story. For the party’s ships to lie fourteen days’ journey from Alexandria, the only possible route is south from Hudson Bay. That distance is nearly 800 miles by direct line, longer by river and portage—a distance difficult to manage in fourteen days. The route is “through the west” from a “Vinland” whose location in 1362, if any, is unknown. No other record of this expedition has been found. Why would explorers who had just suffered a massacre stop to carve—in well-crafted, even, and orderly characters—a stone inscription?

The writing and language of the text are questionable. Experts first analyzed the runic writing in 1899. They dismissed it as a fake, citing too many discrepancies in form and vocabulary from the known languages of fourteenth-century Scandinavia. Most experts since then have agreed.

The condition of the rock has also raised doubts. Though graywacke is a hard sandstone, had it been exposed to wind and rain for hundreds of years, as is supposed, the inscribed areas would show telltale weathering whose age could be estimated. A 2003 analysis conducted by Scott F. Wolter concluded that the inscriptions were more than 200 years old. This remains highly contested.

Finally, who was responsible for the alleged hoax? If the inscription is a fake, it must have been done by someone with knowledge of old Scandinavian language and runes, the ability to carve in stone, and the nerve to carry out the prank. The most likely perpetrator was Olof Ohman. Ohman had little education but owned a small library that included information about runes. His friend, former pastor Sven Fogelblad, may have had knowledge of runes and, like Ohman, may have sought to try to fool academics, whom both men reportedly disliked. Ohman never admitted to a hoax.

The Kensington Runestone has provoked a host of scholarly and popular articles and books. The Minnesota Historical Society library carries more than forty titles on the subject. The slab has been examined in Europe and displayed at the Smithsonian Institution and the 1965 New York World’s Fair. Expert opinion favors the conclusion that the inscription is not authentic, but the majority view asks the question: if a hoax, then who, how, when, and why? Definitive answers have so far proved beyond reach.

  • Cite
  • Share
  • Correct
  • Print
  • Bibliography
  • Related Resources

Blegen, Theodore. The Kensington Rune Stone: New Light on an Old Riddle. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society, 1968.

Gilman, Rhoda R. “Kensington Runestone Revisited: Recent Development, Recent Publications.” Minnesota History 60, no. 2 (Summer 2006): 61–66.

Kensington Runestone research team records
Manuscripts Collection, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul
Description: Includes Scott F. Wolter’s “The Geology of the Kensington Rune Stone,” 2003.

Sprunger, David A. “Mystery and Obsession, J.A. Holvik and the Kensington Runestone.” Minnesota History 57, no. 3 (Fall 2000): 141–154.

Winchell, Newton H. “The Kensington Rune Stone.” Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society XV (1915): 221–286.

Related Images

Front view of the Kensington Runestone
Front view of the Kensington Runestone
The Kensington Runestone, side view.
The Kensington Runestone, side view.
Gilbert Hanson, Olof Ohman, and John Eklaun
Gilbert Hanson, Olof Ohman, and John Eklaun
Kensington Runestone replica
Kensington Runestone replica
Kensington Runestone replica
Kensington Runestone replica

Turning Point

In 1907 Hjalmar Holand acquires the stone from Olof Ohman and begins more than fifty years of advocacy for its authenticity.



While clearing land on his farm, Olof Ohman uncovers a 200-pound slab of rock among the roots of a tree. Upon examination, he finds inscriptions.


The first reports of the stone appear in the Minneapolis Journal and Svenska Amerikanska Posten. Rune experts George Curme of Northwestern University and Olaus Breda of the University of Minnesota judge the inscription a fake.


Runestone advocate Hjalmar Holand of Ephraim, Wisconsin, visits Ohman and acquires the runestone. Holand defends the stone’s authenticity for more than fifty years.


A study committee assembled by the Minnesota Historical Society and led by archeologist Newton Winchell concludes that the inscription is genuine.


Ohman conveys his interest in the Runestone to the Minnesota Historical Society for ten dollars.


Holand sells the stone to Alexandria businessmen for two thousand dollars.


The runestone is put on display at the Smithsonian Institution.


Erik Moltke of the Danish National Museum declares the runestone a fake.


University of Chicago professor Erik Wahlgren concludes, in The Kensington Stone: A Mystery Solved, that the inscription is a hoax.


The runestone is shipped to New York for display in the Minnesota Pavilion at the World’s Fair.


University of Minnesota historian Theodore Blegen concludes that the inscription is a hoax.


An interview with Walter Gran is made public in which he asserts that his father helped carve the runestone.


Geologist Scott F. Wolter concludes that the runic inscriptions are at least 200 years old and therefore could not be a nineteenth-century forgery.