> > What other, genuine 13th, 14th 0r 15th century runestones are available
to
> > comppare it with, ask yourself?

> >              Cheers
> >                       Martin

> I might direct your attention to the Kingigtorssuaq stone, a 14th
> century stone found in Greenland:
> http://xoomer.virgilio.it/fucina2001/_Images/rune12.jpg

> I should like to further note that runes were frequently used by
> common idinviduals for leaving mundane messages, though these were
> usually carved in wood. The runes found in Bergen are a prime example
> of this type of inscription.

> Also, Runes were used in text documents on paper. Indeed, Dr Nielsen
> suggests that the person who prepared the inscription was acquainted
> with such documents. This would further explain the use of macrons
> above some vowels (the double dotting), as macrons were frequently in
> use in documents of that era.

> Perhaps, at least in terms of semantic analysis, one should call the
> KRS a runic document carved in stone, rather than a "runestone".
> Although there are certain similarities to runestones, there is no
> specific evidence that suggests that the primary purpose of the
> document was to be a runestone in any narrow sense of the word.
> Indeed I find the dissimilarities between the KRS and runestones can
> be used as an argument to suggest that the former is not a forgery.  A
> forger setting out to copy a runestone would have been far more
> careful to follow traditional forms.

> Michael