For those curious what the legible portion of it says, the runes spell out this (assuming phonetics consistent with the Elder Futhark it appears to be):

>I D I B E R U G

As the article speculated, it might be a name. But we don't know.

From the nice photograph at the top of the article, there is more carving on the stone, but it doesn't tell us a lot:

> I? Z B ? L A E

These letters probably don't spell out anything meaningful, at least in a literal sense. They could be intended for another purpose; they could be initials of names, they could be intended as "magical" (or have some other ritualistic/religious purpose), or they could just be complete gibberish.

I personally think the theory of it being a grave stone, naming the dead seems like the strongest explanation, as that does seem to be a name; though we cannot be certain even of that. The rest of it? We can only speculate.

But what it says on the runestone is not what makes this find most valuable; the age is the significant part. Finding an example of runic writing that far north, that early. We don't know much the development of runic writing; but this helps add to our understanding. IT most likely did develop from a north italic or etruscan script; We find some very old germanic artifacts using such scripts. But we have yet to find anything that might show us a transition from that to Futhark. previously we don't see anything that looks like north germanic runes earlier than 150; which would put this artifact right on that same cusp.

Headline sucks. Archeologists believe...what exactly?

1. That they found a rune stone?
2. That it's in Norway?
3. That it's the oldest?

[removed]

Hard disagree. They were Roman. They called themselves as such. Were called Romans even by their enemies. The term Byzantine empire or calling then Greeks was done due to doctrinal and political disputes and wanting to delegitimize the eastern empire. What right does some historian or people 500 years after the empires death have to say someone wasn’t Roman when they called themselves Roman and even their enemies did too? All this stuff about them not being laying speakers or being Greek is nonsense. The eastern empire was Greek speaking since the time of Alexander and even before him. And your whole thing about them being in disputes with the west is nonsensical and invalid. That doesn’t effect their Romanness. When the empire split for the final time with the death of theodosius I the two empires had the same government and army and bureaucracy and laws and it’s people were Roman citizens and everything. The eastern empire changed in many ways but Rome had a long long history and changed in many ways during that time. They never stopped being Roman and to call them anything else is ridiculous.

There are more slaves now, then ever in human history

But these were not "Vikings", lets be perfectly clear. This is from 600-800 years before the beginning of the viking age. The fact that this stone has runes (albeit crudly carved) suggests that whoever carved it was, or had close ties to, the Northwest Germanic people of the age; but much much earlier than the Norse culture romanticized in stories of Vikings.

That flavour of archeologist would spend more time breaking half the artefacts in the cave to beat the Nazis to a particular find over wasting time creating an elaborate forgery.

"fortune and glory, doctor Jones"

Wait til you hear about the industrialized prison system

And the “proper” Rome of old changed government multiple times. The kingdom of Rome became the republic which backed the principate form of the empire followed by the dominate. If a change in government and culture means they’re not Roman then Rome stopped being Roman a hell of a long time before the eastern empire was formed.

Possible, but again, way too much effort for relatively little tangible gain.

[removed]

[removed]

What do you mean? Modern Scandinavian languages are directly descended from Old Norse, and Old Norse texts can be read and understood very well.

I imagine IF anyone were to go the trouble of something like this, it would be an archaeologist themselves looking for the credit of a big find?

[removed]

Be cooler to find artifacts from the era of change over to more modern languages, like a Rosetta Stone for the Norse.

I'd say that's a reasonable assumption, and a good place to look for them.

Can facts be racist?

[removed]

This is definitely the proof and evidence of my religion ~ every religious businessman priest ever.

Approx. 1800-2000 years old.

[removed]

The amount of quarters I spent playing Gauntlet could pay for my kids college lol

[removed]