World’s oldest rune stone has more pieces that contain mysterious messages, researchers say | CNN

CNN - Feb 22nd, 2025

In a groundbreaking discovery, scientists in Norway have unearthed and begun reassembling the world's oldest dated rune stone, originally found in 2021. Recent research revealed it to be part of a larger, nearly 2,000-year-old slab, scattered across various burial sites. This has provided rare insights into the early use of runic writing, which originated from the Germanic peoples inspired by the Roman alphabet. The fragments, dating from 50 BC to AD 275, contain multiple inscriptions and markings, posing new challenges for translation and interpretation, and suggesting changes in the stone's ritual use over time.

This find is significant as it challenges previous understandings of rune stones, typically seen as monuments to preserve names. The Svingerud stone, as it is now known, appears to have been intentionally fragmented and reused, indicating a more complex history of use and cultural significance. The ongoing research aims to piece together additional fragments and explore the connection between them, potentially rewriting the understanding of runic scripts in Scandinavia. The implications extend to the fields of archaeology and linguistics, offering new perspectives on the early Germanic writing system and its evolution.

Archaeology Norway Rune Stones University Of Oslo Kristel Zilmer Steinar Solheim Runology Svingerud Site Germanic Writing Roman Alphabet

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

8.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a well-researched and accurate account of the discovery of the world's oldest known rune stone, with strong support from credible sources and expert opinions. It is timely and engages readers with its focus on a significant archaeological finding, though its appeal may be more limited to those with a specific interest in history and archaeology.

The story maintains a good balance by presenting multiple expert perspectives and exploring the scientific and historical significance of the discovery. However, it could be enhanced by incorporating a broader range of viewpoints and providing more detailed explanations of technical terms and methodologies.

Overall, the article is clear, readable, and engaging, effectively communicating the importance of the discovery while leaving room for further exploration and discussion. Its potential impact is moderate, contributing to scholarly discussions and public understanding of early Scandinavian history, though its reach may be limited to a niche audience.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports the discovery of the world's oldest known rune stone in Norway, aligning with archaeological findings and expert statements. The dating of the stone to between 50 BC and AD 275 is consistent with the radiocarbon dating results from the archaeological team. The article correctly identifies the location of the discovery at the Svingerud burial field in Hole municipality and describes the intentional fragmentation of the stone, which is supported by the researchers' observations.

The story accurately attributes the findings to the research team from the University of Oslo's Museum of Cultural History and includes direct quotes from experts like Dr. Kristel Zilmer and Dr. Steinar Solheim, lending credibility to the claims. However, the article could improve by providing more detailed explanations of the methodologies used in the research, such as the specific radiocarbon dating techniques employed.

Overall, the story presents a high level of factual accuracy, with most claims supported by credible sources and expert opinions. The only potential area needing further verification is the interpretation of the runic inscriptions, which remains a complex and ongoing process.

Balance

The article presents a balanced view of the discovery, primarily focusing on the scientific and historical significance of the findings. It includes perspectives from multiple experts, such as Dr. Kristel Zilmer and Dr. Steinar Solheim, ensuring a well-rounded representation of the academic community's views on the subject.

While the article emphasizes the archaeological and historical aspects, it could benefit from including perspectives on the cultural implications of the discovery, such as insights from historians or cultural anthropologists. Additionally, the article could explore the potential impact on contemporary understanding of early Scandinavian societies.

Overall, the article maintains a good balance by providing a comprehensive overview of the discovery and its significance, though it could be enhanced by incorporating a broader range of perspectives.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information from the discovery of the rune stone to the implications of the findings. The language is accessible, making it easy for a general audience to understand the significance of the discovery and the challenges faced by researchers.

While the article effectively communicates the main points, it could benefit from more explicit explanations of technical terms and concepts, such as the process of radiocarbon dating or the historical context of runic inscriptions. Providing a glossary or sidebar with definitions could enhance the clarity for readers unfamiliar with archaeological terminology.

Overall, the article is clear and comprehensible, though it could be improved by offering more detailed explanations of complex terms and concepts.

Source quality

The article relies on high-quality sources, including direct quotes from experts at the University of Oslo's Museum of Cultural History, which is a reputable institution in the field of archaeology and history. The inclusion of statements from recognized experts like Dr. Kristel Zilmer and Dr. Steinar Solheim adds credibility to the reporting.

The story is well-supported by archaeological findings and peer-reviewed research published in the journal Antiquity, which further strengthens the reliability of the information presented. However, the article could improve by citing additional academic publications or studies that corroborate the findings.

Overall, the source quality is excellent, with the article drawing on authoritative and credible sources to substantiate its claims.

Transparency

The article provides a reasonable level of transparency by disclosing the affiliations of the experts quoted and referencing the publication of the research in the journal Antiquity. However, it lacks detailed information about the specific methodologies used in the archaeological research, such as the precise radiocarbon dating techniques employed.

The story could enhance transparency by providing more context on the broader archaeological project, including any potential conflicts of interest or funding sources that might influence the research. Additionally, a clearer explanation of the challenges and limitations faced by researchers in interpreting the runic inscriptions would provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the study's context.

Overall, while the article is transparent about its sources and affiliations, it could improve by offering more detailed explanations of the research methods and potential biases.