Learn More
Authenticity and Scholarship
The case for authenticity rests on the discovery story, on some geological arguments about the weathering of the carved grooves, and on the conviction of local defenders. The scholarly case against it is linguistic and runological, and it has held for over a century. The inscription's grammar and vocabulary contain forms characteristic of nineteenth-century Swedish dialect and of English influence, features that would be anachronistic in a genuine 1362 text, and several rune shapes do not match those used in authentic medieval Scandinavian inscriptions.
Erik Wahlgren's 1958 study set out these problems in detail, and later runologists have concurred. The Minnesota Historical Society, which has studied and displayed material connected to the stone, treats the inscription as of questionable authenticity and the object as a product of its immigrant milieu. The honest record is a firm scholarly verdict of forgery alongside a genuine, and openly noted, tradition of local belief in the stone's antiquity.
Cross-Tradition Connections
Sources
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.