Page:History of Goodhue County, Minnesota.djvu/66

 36 HISTORY OF GOODHUE COUNTY doubt the story of the finding of the stone. According to affidavits in possession of H. R. H. Holand, curator of the Sons of Norway, Ephrain, AVis., the stone was found under a gigantic tree at Kensington, Minn., by Pehr Oman while he was grubbing stumps. However, it was at one time on exhibition at Chicago and was declared to be a fake. At the exposition at Stockholm, Sweden, where the Runic lettering was translated by some of the best scholars in Sweden, it was claimed that there can be no doubt as to its authenticity. Arthur- G. Thomas, of Chicago, manager of the Swedish village, said yesterday that in his opinion the proof of the finding of the stone is conclusive." The above may, as some claim, be a fake; but investigate, and if in time to come it is entitled to credence, it may perhaps be the means of shedding light on some of our ancient history that is very confusing. On the other hand, if it proves to be spurious, brand it as such, in a manner so as to cause the perpetrators of fakes of this nature, to be more careful in the future. The finding of this stone is not more remarkable or singular than the finding of the Rosetta stone in 1799, by some Egyptian fishermen, who in drawing a seine in the river Nile brought to shore in their nets a curiously engraved stone, which on investigation by students proved to be the key by which the import of the hieroglyphics and writings carved within the great Pyramids of Sheops was made known to the world. Some of the information given to the world through the assistance of this remarkable relic, is, that these pyramids in question were begun by the builders 2170 years before the Chris- tian era, and they stand today the greatest structure ever reared by the hand of man. Following is an article written by Lucien Carr, entitled "The Mounds of the Mississippi A T alley Historically Considered," which appeared in 'Memoirs of the Kentucky Geological Survey," Vol. 11, 1183; N. S. Shaler, Director. In a paper upon the "Prehis- toric Remains of Kentucky," published in the first volume of these memoirs, I have expressed the opinion that it was impossible to distinguish between a series of stone implements taken from the Mounds in the Mississippi valley and a similar series made and used by the Modern Indians. In fact, so alike are these ob- jects in conception and execution that any attempt to distinguish them, based upon form or finish, must be but the merest guess- work. From the rude knife to the carved and polished "Groget," they may, one and all, have been taken from the inmost recesses of a mound or picked upon the surface amid the debris of a recent Indian village, and the most experienced archaeologist, if called upon to decide as to their origin, would have to acknowl- edge himself at fault. Nor does the similarity stop with objects made of stone. On the contrary, it is believed to extend to all