Philology Against Geology, and Neither Side Fully Winning

Scandinavian runologists reacted to the stone almost immediately with strong skepticism, identifying runic forms, grammar and vocabulary in the inscription that appeared closer to nineteenth century Scandinavian-American dialect than to any attested fourteenth century Old Norse, criticisms that have only accumulated with further linguistic study over the following century and remain the strongest evidence against the stone's claimed date. Early local geological opinion cut somewhat the other way: the state geologist Newton Winchell, examining the stone shortly after its discovery, considered its weathering more consistent with centuries of exposure than with recent carving, a judgment some later geologists have echoed using more modern weathering analysis techniques, while other geologists have disputed those methods and their conclusions.

This split between confident linguistic rejection and more divided geological opinion is the genuine, still unresolved core of the controversy, rather than a case where all expert opinion points one way. The overwhelming mainstream position among historians and runologists remains that the stone is a nineteenth century production, most plausibly connected to Ohman himself or someone in his immediate circle, but the museum's continued framing of the dispute as open reflects a real, if minority, body of geological argument that has not been fully resolved to every specialist's satisfaction.