From the excerpt: Swedish linguists happened upon Larsson's documents recently and found that his writing corresponds to pieces of the Kensington Runestone inscription.
Funny. In a part of the article not excerpted, it says it was a Finnish linguist.
The problem with this "smoking gun" is that it is not a smoking gun. It is quite conceivable that an earlier version of this runic trade language existed in Scandinavia in the 1300s.
Would the experts be so bold as to claim that this runic language sprang out of nowhere sometime after the 1800s? That it had no prececessors? Only a fool would claim as much.
Would the experts be so bold as to claim that there could have been a secret Scandinavian runic language in the 1300s that is today unknown to have existed? Only a fool would claim as much.
From the full article: To Williams, it is inconceivable that the runes on the rock in Minnesota could have survived in Sweden for 500 years with little variation; languages live and change over time
That is attacking a straw man. According to the first quotation in this post, only "parts" of the Kensington Runestone correspond to the secret Swedish runic trade language of the 1800s.
Finally, we have the compelling circumstantial evidence. Flies from the Norse Greenland settlement were radiologically dated as late as 1350, but no later. Today archaeologists believe the Greenland settlement collapsed roughly about that time. No one knows where the Greenland settlers went, if they went anywhere. Speculation places some of them in Iceland.
Yet, the Kensington runestone is clearly marked with the date 1362 AD. It is very conceivable that some or all of the Greenland settlers sailed into Hudson Bay, then to James Bay, then south through the Red River of the North, and finally took a turn on one of the tributaries to near what is today Alexandria, Minnesota. At some point they met the fate at the hands of the "Skraelings" as recounted on the Runestone.
A 19th century forger would have had no reason to date the rock as 1362. The fate of the Greenland settlement was only learned in detail in the 20th century.
Apply Ockham's Razor. What is the simplest explanation for the Kensington Runestone? That it is genuine.
The only way to prove that, though, will be to find a second runestone left by the same settlers. The Kensington Runestone was found in the roots of a tree by a farmer excavating a portion of his land. The likelihood of finding a second runestone is not good, but if one exists it should eventually be found.
My suspicion is that for reasons of multicultural correctness, any achievement by the Norse must be denigrated. The Norse were clearly white and hence evil to the core. Any manner of bashing the Norse is now acceptable. And thus are academic careers made.
That should be "after the 1300s."
Would the experts be so bold as to claim that there could have been a secret Scandinavian runic language in the 1300s that is today unknown to have existed? Only a fool would claim as much.
That should be "that there could not have been.
I finally looked at a map!
That should be: "sailed into Hudson Bay, then south through rivers to Lake Winnipeg, then south on the Red River of the North, and then east on some combination of rivers, streams, and lakes to what is now Alexandria, Minnesota."
That part of Minnesota is replete with lakes and rivers. It is quite conceivable that the water systems today are somewhat different from the way they were in 1362.
It is clear, though, that a group of Norsemen could have made it from Hudson Bay to the Alexandria area at that time through a combination of waterways, and perhaps a few brief portages.
What were they doing? Exploring, no doubt. Perhaps they meant to settle there, but ultimately were killed off by the "Skraelings."