Hinn 14. desember 2003 lét [ kubrick36 ] þetta frá sér fara:
> What are your thoughts on the Kensington Runestone?
>
> ...
>
> If the runestone is authentic, it would mean that the Norse where in America
> (what is now the United States, that is) in 1362. However, many people
> believe that the runestone is a hoax mainly because of the language used
> does not match with the Old Norse that would have been spoken in 1362 and
> looks more similar to modern Swedish? The largest of these anachronisms is
> the word 'opdagelsefard.' Can you help me determine whether the runestone
> is real or not? My Old Norse knowledge did not allow me to take on a
> project of this size. What are your expert opinions.
Many amateurs, and even some scholars, have fallen into the trap of analyzing
what is purportedly a 14th century Swedish (or Guthnic or East Norse) inscription
on the basis of the classical Old Norse language (i.e. 12th century Icelandic).
Avoiding that trap the inscription still doesn't look like what is preserved of
14th century Swedish documents. Proponents of the stone's authenticity argue that
the inscription may represent a language closer to that of the common people whereas
the surviving documents were written in a formal and antiquated style. Apparent
anachronisms in the runic type seem to have some parallels in contemporary inscriptions.
I remember that my history book back in gymnasium treated the stone as a
ridiculously transparent hoax arguing that "the language is obviously not Old Norse".
From what additional material I've read I don't think that opinion is entirely warranted.
It is, at least, clear that the question will not be decided entirely on our
knowledge of Old Norse. From what I remember there is some circumstancial evidence
supporting the stone's authenticity and some, perhaps more, supporting the hoax theory.
For what it's worth, and I haven't studied the matter extensively and I lack much
of the relevant expert knowledge, I'd say the stone is probably but not definitely
modern.
Kveðja,
Haukur