Minnesota Archaeologist Says Du Luth Stone is “More Likely Authentic Than Not.”

Well, well, well, it’s only taken 25 years since I got involved in the world of out of place artifacts, but it’s finally happened.  A mainstream archaeologist has written a 2024 paper where he concluded, although somewhat tepidly, an inscribed stone I have scientifically examined was authentic.  While it really shouldn’t be a big deal, it actually is a big step in the right direction.  David Mather, a National Register Archaeologist with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office wrote a paper about the Du Luth Stone concluding it was “More likely authentic than not.”  Mather went on to say in his closing remarks, “On its own, I believe that the Du Luth Stone is likely eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as an object.”  I couldn’t agree more.

This is important, and I congratulate David for having the courage to ultimately draw the correct conclusion.  That said, he couldn’t help himself by including criticism of me and archaeology’s favorite whipping boy the Kensington Rune Stone.  He and his colleagues should know better than to trot out the tired and completely unsupported assertion that the artifact is a hoax.  I have published numerous papers and books with voluminous conclusive evidence, in multiple disciplines (geology, words, runes, dialect, grammar, medieval Easter Table dating, medieval and late 19th Century history), the artifact is, in fact, authentic. 

Instead of even mentioning one piece of evidence to support his assertion and belief, he resorts to name-calling labeling me a “pseudoarcheologist.”  I was the one who took Mather to see the artifact in the first place and instead of taking the research I shared seriously; he roundly dismissed it without any intellectual curiosity or serious consideration.  This is the typical of my experience with archaeologists who are incapable of thinking outside of their historical paradigm box.  It’s disappointing and frankly, is a disservice to the public who pay their salaries.

I’m not going to waste the reader’s time arguing why I am right, and Mather is wrong when it comes the KRS and the Templars who carved and it along the north-south continental divide as a land claim.  He, like many other archaeologists I’ve interacted with seem incapable of considering factual evidence with an open mind.  It should be noted Mather confirms the Du Luth Stone, like the Kensington Rune Stone, is located along an important watershed divide.  What I have done publicly in my response the Duluth Herald article that was recently published: https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/local/northlandia-did-duluth-namesake-etch-on-pine-county-rock , and will do here again, is issue a challenge to Mather to join me in a public debate about the authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone (two words).  I can assure you he will decline, for when he dives into the “evidence” to support his “belief” he will find there is zero factual evidence to support a hoax.  Either that, or he won’t respond at all.  The lack of a response will tell us he also knows there is no evidence to support his belief, and how could there be since it is 100% a genuine medieval artifact and vitally important to not only Minnesota history, but the world history.

I’m ready when you are David…