I was wondering if any modern analysis had been done on the supposed Viking relic.
As far as as I know, various rune experts (from Norway, Sweden, the USA) had examined the stone, and found spellings, words, that were inconsistent with 10th-century Norse…although some supposedly false words were (indeed) in use at the time.
At any rate, there are now techniques that can date a stone carving (the weathering in the carved area gives a reliable way to date the time of the carving); these techniques have been developed quite recently.
At any rate, have any modern examinations of the stone been done, and what were the conclusions-is it a fake?
Why examine it again when it’s quite obvious that it’s a 19th century forgery?
That’s just what the Reptilioids want you to believe.
Define obvious.
Like using a vocabulary and grammar that is inconsistent with any rune stone from the supposed time found in Scandinavia.
Like finding a Viking Runestone in Minnesota.
And scholars discover new texts in the old world that blow suppositions away … so perhaps there are new findings that the stone could be compared with :rolleyes:
Look, we all know that the vikings were rapacious evil marauders who never farmed, had flocks, or families, or religion and existed only to take to boats heading southwards to kill everything that moves. They never took wives, kids and farm stuff anywhere to settle like oh, Iceland and parts of Ireland, Britain and France [and all over europe, actually] or find stable jobs like becoming guards for caravans and palaces in what is now Turkey and the middle east … and they never established peaceful trade settlements like Birka …
If there are, perhaps you would be so kind as to cite them.
I have no idea what this is supposed to do with the fact that the Kensington Runestone is a hoax.
Modern scholarship is unanimous that no Viking presence in what is now the United States can be found. Absolutely everything that people touted as Viking relics have been debunked. The more scholars find out the more certain they are, not less. There are no new texts, no new artifacts, no new campgrounds. Not even any new debunkings: the old ones still work perfectly well. 
No idea, but l’Anse aux Meadows is a new world viking site that predated Columbus by several hundred years. As the archeologists admit, they do not know how far southwards the vikings actually penetrated, but there you have it. New World Vikings. Now, if they made it all the way inland via the great lakes to the center of the country, no clue - however keep in mind the French made it all the way past the great lakes to the Mississippi river and started down the river. If they could do it, I honestly do not see why the vikings couldn’t manage it also.
[QUOTE=aruvqan[ Now, if they made it all the way inland via the great lakes to the center of the country, no clue - however keep in mind the French made it all the way past the great lakes to the Mississippi river and started down the river. If they could do it, I honestly do not see why the vikings couldn’t manage it also.[/QUOTE]
but the French did it in stages, over the course of a century, after having developed major settlements on the St. Lawrence that provided a good supply base. No evidence that the Vikings ever did that.
And whether or not they could have or did has no bearing on whether or not the “Kensington Runestone” is a fake. I mean, if it turned out fairies existed, it wouldn’t make the Cottingley Fairy photos any more real.
No, the “vikings” didn’t do all that. The Norse or Danes or Swedes or Icelanders did. Sometimes young men from these groups went out raiding–& became vikings for a while. I recently read Andrew Wawn’s book on the Victorian Viking revival, when “Viking” became a popular word for describing all aspects of various related Northern cultures; read more here.
Wikipedia’s article on the KRS seems pretty complete.
Surely, if there’s new information on this interesting artifact, somebody would have posted it on the internet!
In other words, you don’t have any actual information related to the OP.
Could have, and did, are two entirely different things. No one disputes that the Vikings reached Newfoundland. But if you want to speculate, in the absence of any evidence, that the Vikings made it to other places that were reached by later explorers, why stop at Minnesota? Maybe they went down the coast instead and reached Mexico (which would have been much less dangerous than going inland). Maybe even Brazil. Who knows, maybe they rounded Cape Horn into the Pacific. The trouble is, once you start with the premise of “could have” it’s hard to know where to stop.
Experts have argued this back and forth. There is evidence for either side on that. Richard Nielsen seems to think it’s no forgery, and has published stuff in 1985 and 2001.
Scott F. Wolter has shown by (wiki) Using both transmitted and reflected light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy and elemental analysis, he and his staff found mica degradation on the man-made surfaces. Wolter reported that his investigation clearly indicated the inscription had weathered at least 200 years after carving. That’s in 2000.
One point is that the discoverer never admitted it was a hoax, and never tried to make money off it.
And, it’s possible that the Scandinavians did make it that far.
Thus, altho I agree it’s unlikely, the KRS has to be classified as “doubtful” instead of “forgery”.
They sure did, but not until almost a thousand years later.
Only if you believe the “mainstream” version of the Scandinavian peopling of the upper-Midwest.
You know, when the KRS was found 1898 the idea that the Scandinavians had really gotten to America before Columbus was weird fringie stuff. Now we know better, as of 1960 and L’Anse aux Meadows and we also think there was even another larger settlement, and there is documented evidence of plans to send explorers back to Vinland that late. It is possible that Vikings could have made it that far.
None of this was known when the KRS was found. It was pooh-pooh as a fake based mostly upon the “certain known fact that Columbus was first” for a hundred years.
wiki= *For the next 40 years, Holand struggled to sway public and scholarly opinion about the Runestone, writing articles and several books. He achieved brief success in 1949, when the stone was put on display at the Smithsonian Institution, and scholars such as William Thalbitzer and S. N. Hagen published papers supporting its authenticity.[35] However, at nearly the same time, Scandinavian linguists Sven Jansson, Erik Moltke, Harry Anderson and K. M. Nielsen, along with a popular book by Erik Wahlgren again questioned the Runestone’s authenticity.[4]
*
So, before there was proof that the Vikings had even got to American there was dispute.
Since the discovery of L’Anse aux Meadows, there has not been the same claims of forgery as before. In fact just the opposite.
wiki : AVM: A medieval abbreviation?
In 2004, Keith Massey and Kevin Massey published their theory that the Latin letters on the Kensington Stone, AVM, contain evidence authenticating a medieval date for the artifact.[39] The Kensington Stone critic Erik Wahlgren had noticed that the carver had incised a notch on the upper right hand corner of the letter V.[4] The Massey Twins note that a mark in that position is consistent with an abbreviation technique used in the 14th century. To render the word “Ave” in that period, the final vowel would have been written as a superscript. Eventually, the superscript vowel was replaced by a mere superscript dot. The existence of a notch where Wahlgren notes, then, shows that the carver was familiar with 14th century abbreviation techniques. The Massey Twins, however, point out that knowledge of these conventions was not available to the purported forger in late 19th century Minnesota, as books documenting these techniques were being printed in Italian academic circles only a few years after Ohman discovered the stone.[
From this Massey brothers’ article:
That ought to tell you all you need to know about what mainstream science thinks. But it’s worse than that. Unless you’re already familiar with the field the name Epigraphical Society won’t leap out at you. Those who are familiar know that it was the brainchild of classic charlatan Barry Fell, he of America B.C. infamy. He’s to ancient American studies the way Duane Gish is to Creationism.
What that footnote of the Masseys really says is the equivalent of writing “no respectable publication would take my article on spontaneous generation but the Journal of Creation (a real thing) snapped it up.”
DrDeth, I know you’re a believer, but it’s totally disingenuous of you to present fringe publication as actual science. Others here require the context to evaluate what weight if any to give to fellow believers.