The Consequences of Truth

Authenticity debates and charges of fraud are notinfrequent within the world of archaeology. Depending on the importance of a chosenobject, such discussions may reach the level and quality of courtroom rhetoric.Accusations may be hurled, back and forth, through scholarly chambers, and the questionof guilt if the object is proven a fraud may be debated, fiercely, with or withoutconsiderable proof on either side. This article discusses thereception of two inscriptions, from late nineteenth century until the current date: theLatin Fibula Praenestina, from Praeneste (modern Palestrina), Italy, and the KensingtonRune Stone, from Kensington, Minnesota, USA. The fibula is said to date to the earlyseventh century BC, and the runic inscription itself mentions the date“1362”. However, shortly after their discovery, both of theseinscriptions were accused of being forgeries. Their importance would be significant ifthey could be proven to be authentic. And yet there is continuing debate about theirauthenticity and their value to scholarship