Talk:Grooves (archaeology)

Sharpening wall

I saw a limestone wall in the old part of Sutton Coldfield that had been used to sharpen swords when the town was involved in the English civil war. The marks look a lot like the Gotland stone marks pictured in this article.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if you could provide a picture of them :).--Berig (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton_Coldfield It's on wikipedia and I was wrong! They're from the 15th century and: "Butts were constructed across the town for archery training, and marks can still be seen in the sandstone wall on 3 Coleshill Street where archers sharpened their arrows."

This would also explain the other smaller marks found elsewhere. We think of Vikings as warriors, but naturally they also hunted animals or just shot arrows for training purpose, a training arrow would have no metal point and it would only need to be rubbed against a soft stone to sharpen it. Mistery solved! Unfortunately I cannot find any pictures online, but I have relatives in Sutton Coldfield, perhaps they could provide a picture. Or alternatively put a request on the Sutton Coldfield page, I don't know how to do that though. Glad you asked, Berig, I would never have looked.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, and I am now quite sure that they were used for sharpening training arrows and maybe even training spears. The best thing for this article and even the entire topic would be if you could provide pictures and even write a section on the English grooves with a reference (such as tourist information).--Berig (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good, I hadn't thought of spears, that would explain the marks higher up on the rock,and also their depth. I can imagine that as the groove wore on it would make it easier and more efficient for sharpening.

There is a little problem: although my conclusion seems to me to be common sense,requiring little knowledge of historical weaponry techniques, Wikipedia does not allow original research. I could add the info to the article, but its safety without pictures or further articles by researchers would not be garanteed. I can't see everyone liking it, especially New Age Druids or people of that ilk. I suggest that this article be removed from {{WikiProject Paranormal}} and {{Astrology project}}. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, any inclusion of the English grooves would naturally need references, but there should be some references about the English ones. I'm not sure whether it would be OR to combine the English ones with this article since it is basically about grooves in rock that are of archaeological interest. The tags you want removed are included since the topic belongs to the archaeoastronomy field with all that goes with it.--Berig (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd have to find a source actually connecting the two phenomena, otherwise you'd have trouble with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. –Holt (T•C) 11:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It would be ironic, though, to call such an inclusion OR or SYNTH which is WP language for crackpottery when there are sources connecting these grooves with similar ones in Luxemburg and Finland.--Berig (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it is quite ironic. I've been trawling Google Books a bit, and even though I have not yet come across anything connecting the two, there seem to be relatively many books and articles on this topic, so there should be something out there. –Holt (T•C) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hyperboreans and Stonehenge

This article is not about Hyperborenas or about Stonehenge. Long writings on these topics are irrelevant for this article. I have therefore reverted the additions talking about Stonehenge and Hyperboreans. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that most of this edit reads like speculation and original research or synthesis. However the reference looks reasonable (I haven't consulted it directly but have looked at the series of papers from this and other conferences) and I have no reason to think there's anything unreliable about it. I've reinserted what I think could reasonably be attributed to the conference paper. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is a shambles and needs a full re-writing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stavgard (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Stavgard (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This comes from the article in Fornvännen 1983

This article was edited and approved by the previous editor of Fornvännen Fil Dr Jan-Peder Lamm Fornvännen is a highly reputable magazine Stavgard (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Jan-Peder Lamm, born 27 October 1935, is a Swedish archaeologist. He received his PhD in 1973 from the University of Stockholm for a dissertation about a Migration Period elite cemetery near Drottningholm.

Lamm taught archaeology at the University of Stockholm in the 1970s and then worked until retirement as Head Curator for the Swedish Iron Age at the Museum of National Antiquities in Stockholm. He is a member of the editorial board behind the journal Fornvännen and has taken active part in the Helgö project since the 1960s. Stavgard (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree. It does not belong under the heading Grooves. It belongs under the heading Astronomical calendars on Gotland However the heading Grooves needs a full rewrite

Stavgard (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Purpose and Date of Gotland's Grooves

No professional archaeologist in Sweden believes that the grooves on Gotland have anything to do with astronomy. This fringe interpretation should be mentioned only briefly and dismissively in the article. Myself and my colleagues in the archaeology of Gotland tend to believe that the grooves are industrial remains from the High Middle Ages. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been looking and discussed it with my colleagues but we can't find any reliable source for this statement.

Stavgard (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Which statement are you trying to source? What's your job? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete this heading It has been suggested that Gotland astronomical calendars be merged into this article or section as it does not fill any purpose longer Stavgard (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no scientific support for the earlier speculations on this page. Therefore these speculations should be deleted. It is consensus that the Gotlandic grooves as well as the French are from the stone age. There are no today living archaeologists who have been involved in researching Gotlandic grooves. There are wild speculations on some archaeological sites however most of the contributers even don't seem to know how the Gotlandic grooves look like. Stavgard (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Your adding of more wild speculation (and in some cases claims proven to be wrong) are not helping. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sören Gannholm was a self-published local amateur scholar and so is not an authoritative source on this subject. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is approved and financed by the Mårten Stenberger Scholarship Fund and the Society of DBW's Foundation

The main sources are those edited by Fornvännen and Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences

You have not made any research in the Gotlandic grooves. All You say here is unsupported speculations.

This is unsupported speculation and has nothing in this article to do Swanström, Lennart. 1995. Slipskåror och järnhantering på Gotland. Gotländskt arkiv 67. Visby. pp. 11-18

This is also unsupported speculation Lindström, Jonathan. 1997. Fornlämningarnas orientering på Gotland: en kritisk granskning av den arkeoastronomiska tolkningen av slipskåror samt en studie av riktningsfördelningen hos öns forntida gravar, hus och medeltida kyrkor. Till Gunborg. Dept of Archaeology, University of Stockholm. Pp. 497-508. and has nothing here to do. He is not an archaeologist but a writer of childrens books.

None of them have done research on Gotlandic grooves.

This one does not belong here either as it is 19th century folklore Torsten Mårtensson: Sliprännornas praktiska bruk Stavgard (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

None of this is true, Stavgard. Gotländskt Arkiv is a respected regional journal put out by the county museum. The Till Gunborg volume is a Festschrift put out by the Dept of Archaeology, University of Stockholm. People have pointed out that we're not supposed to publish our own research results on Wikipedia. We refer to authoritative published sources here. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately all of this is true. Martin Rundkvist needs to be blocked as he is sabotaging the Wikipedia

If there are terrorists like Martin Rundkvist on Wikipedia that cannabalizes properly referenced articles it is impossible to update with proper information

Stavgard (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, Stavgard. Try and stay focused on the content of the article. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The article Grooves (archaeology) is about archaeology

The article Astronomical calendars on Gotland is about astronomy, Two different subjects

The Grooves article is about all types of grooves from various times

The article Astronomical calendars on Gotland is about the special grooves from the stone age on Gotland which have internationally have been accepted as astronomical calendars.

See paper presented at teh conference in Moskow

Henriksson, Göran. The grooves on the island of Gotland in the Baltic sea: a neolithic lunar calendar. Paper presented at Conference: SEAC 8th. Moscow 2000 Publisher: Institute of Archaeology. Russian Academy of Sciences. Title: Astronomy of Ancient Civilizations ISBN: 5-02-008768-8 Editor(s): Prof. Tamila Potemkina & Prof. V. Obridko Place/Year: Moscow, 2002 http://www.astro.uu.se/archast/SlipskarorJenam2000Publ.pdf

Stavgard (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard, please stop edit warring

Stavgard, please stop edit warring. You're pushing a 1980s fringe theory and deleting references to respected scholarly publications. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Martin , you very well know that Lindström is not an academic and that his small article in Gunborg is not about grooves. I have here. It has nothing to do with grooves!! Probably you havn't read it

Further I don't like your way of using several signatures in order to confuse others Stavgard (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard, I have looked at the contributions of the three editors whom you have accused of being the same person. From their contribution histories it seems unlikely to me that this is the case. Please don't carry on accusing other editors of sockpuppetry. If you firmly believe this is the case, then report it at WP:SPI. Otherwise please stop. The fact that three other editors each share the same opinion about an article does not mean they are one and the same person. They could just as well be three people who have independently come to similar conclusions - making you the odd one out.

To all four of you: I suggest that rather than trying to impose your wills one one another you find a way of collaborating. Stavgard is a new editor here, unused to Wikipedia and his English is not as good as yours. Please help him contribute in an encyclopaedic way, rather than simply rejecting everything he proposes out of hand. I found a way of incorporating one of his references (without accepting a lot of WP:OR that came with it) and on the whole I think it was a net benefit. Please work together everyone. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

He clearly isn't listening to others at all, and has ignored or rejected all my advice, help, answers and attempts at communication. Despite this I do not reject everything he does (because he in fact never *proposes* anything, despite repeatedly being asked to) out of hand and am slightly disappointed to be accused of this. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're disappointed and I'm not equating you to him. But there is one difference between him that gives you an extra responsibility; he is a new and inexperienced editor and the rest of us here are not. Waiting for him to propose a acceptable compromise when he has no clue about what is acceptable is going to be futile. What we need to do is STOP reverting his edits right back, and instead try to figure out what is worthwhile and salvageable in his contributions. Then if we can work that into the article he will feel we are taking him seriously, which will mean that when we do remove the OR he is less likely to simply paste it back in again. It also models for him our systems of compromise and collaboration, as well as some technicalities such as using references and wikilinks. Most of all, we need to stop treating him as an enemy because that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar!

Annoying newcomers to Wikipedia can be stonewalled right back out again with an insistence on policy, procedure and escalating blocks. (And don't forget I have already blocked him twice!) But that doesn't mean they should be treated this way and there are alternatives such as getting alongside someone rather than facing them down. PS to Stavgard: I'm assuming good faith on your part and that if this style of working together was offered, you would reciprocate! Otherwise all bets are off.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm already doing exactly what you tell me to do, and have been doing from the start. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Martin Rundkvist alias OpenFuture, alias, Mrund, alias Bazj is using 3 signatures at least to alternately destroy this 5 star page with his own phantasies of speculations and adding references which have nothing to do with this subject of Stone Age grooves on Gotland. This is completely against Wikipedia rules to use different aliases to confuse others and cannibalize references. Rundkvist has obviously now knowledge in the subject of Stone Age grooves on Gotland. I can’t find that he has published anything on this subject. The two references he insists to add have nothing to do with scientific analyses of Stone Age grooves on Gotland. To my knowledge, no today living archaeologist has undertaken research on these Stone Age grooves on Gotland. The archaeologists who in the early 20th century took interest in theese grooves dated them to the Stone Age. This part that Rundkvist has added is pure nonsense:

” The dates and function of the grooves on Gotland have seen debate between on one hand archaeologists, who argue for a High Medieval date and some industrial function,[6][7] and on the other non-archaeologists who argue for a Neolithic date and a ritual calendar function. The latter support their view mainly with the idea that the direction of each groove might be given an astronomical interpretation, where each groove would mark a sightline towards a certain celestial phenomenon that may be reconstructed for a certain year”

Rundkvist refters to an article by a student who has no academical exam and is now writing books for childeren: ” ^ Lindström, Jonathan. 1997. Fornlämningarnas orientering på Gotland: en kritisk granskning av den arkeoastronomiska tolkningen av slipskåror samt en studie av riktningsfördelningen hos öns forntida gravar, hus och medeltida kyrkor. Till Gunborg.Dept of Archaeology, University of Stockholm. Pp. 497-508.” This article does not have the standard to be included as a reference. Lindström begins his article with a correct statement of Fil Dr Göran Henrikssons astronomical interpretation of the grinding grooves. Lindström goes on to say that he does not believe in Fil Dr Göran Henrikssons astronomical interpretation, which is his right. Then Lindström tries to prove that Fil Dr Göran Henriksson is wrong from his own criteria, which lacks scientific basis. Lindström does not mention Fil Dr Göran Henriksson’s statistical analysis with 94% probability of astronomy or Fil. Kand. Sören Gannholm’s corresponding tests. He rounds off with the statistics of tombsdistribution. It has such large margins of error that it does not prove anything. What is interesting about Gunborg Jansson, to whom the book is dedicated is that she has dug a grave in Visby where the dead lay his hand on a stone with an grinding groove. The tomb dates from about 3300 BC.

Further Rundkvist writes: ” Certain late 1st millennium picture stones on Gotland carry grooves that have been made after the relief of the stones was carved, which shows the grooves to be late. Likewise with the level above current sea surface of the lowest grooved outcrops on the island, that shows them to be no older than AD 1000 judging from post-glacial shoreline displacement.” Here again Rundkvist is out of touch with science. The grooves on picture stones are scintificly proven to be primary to the picture stones and accordingly older than the picture stones. http://www.kulturarvgotland.se/node/3277 ^ Swanström, Lennart. 1995. Slipskåror och järnhantering på Gotland. Gotländskt arkiv 67. Visby. pp. 11-18 Swanström takes it for granted that the grooves are secondary to the pictures on the picture stones without making a scientific investigation. When no the stones have been scientific investigated Swanström’s arugument falls and this student thesis on the second level does not qualify as ref.

There was a Symposium at the University of Uppsala discussing the age of the Gotlandic grooves on May 23, 1991. It had been maintained that most of the Gotlandic grooves were below water during the Stone Age. Archeology professor Bo Gräslund, who was present confirmed with great force the uncertainty in the uplift theory and that the water level was much lower during the Stone Age. Professor Gräslund and the professor in geology Lars-König Königsson had discussed this for many years. Gräslund also confirmed that he the same day had been in contact with Königsson. Königsson had then stated that the Gotlandic uplift does not follow current theories and that it also is little explored. http://195.67.126.28/ga/arkiv/view.php?id=902

Gotland 3,600 grooves have been discovered in the Swedish island province of Gotland,[3] of which 700 are inlimestone outcrops, while the remainder is on c. 800 boulders and slabs. The grooves are 50–100 cm long, c. 10 cm deep and c. 10 cm wide.[4] The grooves have apparently been made with an abrasive pendulum measuring c. 192-283 cm in length.[5] The grooves began to attract scholarly attention in the 1850s. At first they were called "sharpening stones", but later they received the name "sword sharpening stones". After some time, newspapers and scholarly publications began to dispute this, since the shape of the grooves make them unfit for sharpening swords. Another reason was the fact that by 1933, more than 500 sites with grooves had been identified on Gotland. They were evenly distributed across the island. It was also noted that they ran in different directions and often crossed each other. The dates and function of the grooves on Gotland have seen debate between on one hand archaeologists, who argue for a High Medieval date and some industrial function,[6][7] and on the other non-archaeologists who argue for a Neolithic date and a ritual calendar function. The latter support their view mainly with the idea that the direction of each groove might be given an astronomical interpretation, where each groove would mark a sightline towards a certain celestial phenomenon that may be reconstructed for a certain year during the Stone Age.[8] The grooves under overhangs in Scania cannot have been used as sightlines in this suggested manner. Certain late 1st millennium picture stones on Gotland carry grooves that have been made after the relief of the stones was carved, which shows the grooves to be late. Likewise with the level above current sea surface of the lowest grooved outcrops on the island, that shows them to be no older than AD 1000 judging from post-glacial shoreline displacement. [edit]References ^ Rosborn, S. Det randiga berget i Gantofta, published in Populär historia 1/1992. ^ Torsten Mårtensson: Sliprännornas praktiska bruk. ^ Gannholm, Sören. The Gotlandic grinding grooves - Stone age calendars?http://stavgard.com/stavar/gotlslipsk/grindinggrooves.html#gotlandskarta Gotlands slipskåror, Sören Gannholm 1993. ISBN 91-630-1845-4 ^ Henriksson, Göran (1983). "Astronomisk tolkning av slipskåror på Gotland". Fornvännen (Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities). ^ Henriksson, Göran. 2000. The grooves on the island of Gotland in the Baltic sea: a neolithic lunar calendar. Paper presented at "Astronomy of Ancient Civilizations", 8th SEAC Conference, Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences. Eds T. Potemkina & V. Obridko. Moscow. ISBN 5-02-008768-8. ^ Swanström, Lennart. 1995. Slipskåror och järnhantering på Gotland. Gotländskt arkiv 67. Visby. pp. 11-18 ^ Lindström, Jonathan. 1997. Fornlämningarnas orientering på Gotland: en kritisk granskning av den arkeoastronomiska tolkningen av slipskåror samt en studie av riktningsfördelningen hos öns forntida gravar, hus och medeltida kyrkor. Till Gunborg.Dept of Archaeology, University of Stockholm. Pp. 497-508. ^ Henriksson, Göran. 1983. Astronomisk tolkning av slipskåror på Gotland. Fornvännen 78. Stockholm. Stavgard (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have warned Stavgard on my own talk page about making sockpuppetry allegations and I do so again here. I think it is extremely unlikely that sockpuppetry is going on here. Any further allegations must be made at WP:SPI. I will regard making allegations anywhere else as disruptive editing, for which a block may be appropriate.

Stavgard, instead of attacking other editors' points of view, or engaging in a forum-like debate here, please propose a clear and succinct improvement you would like to make to the article. Please try and use the referencing system we have patiently explained to you. Ideally, just suggest a single additional sentence, with an accompanying reference, that would start to improve the article in your eyes. The above wall of text is not helpful in trying to build an encyclopaedia article. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Kim, thank you for talking to me. What do you mean by improving the article. I have worked it through very carefully and added proper references. Glad to hear if you have more suggestions. I have explained above what is wrong and not scientific supported in the old article. This article covers the different types of grooves including the Stone Age Gotlandic grooves.

I also worked through an article about the Gotlandic astronomy with edited references that is a neccessary complement to the archaeological article about all grooves. This article "Astronomical calendars on Gotland" has been blocked and I can't reach it.

I have had both articles edited by experts in the field.

There were a couple of years back wild speculations that don't belong in a serious article like this. Somebody didn't understand how the waterlevel on an island like Gotland moved up and down and somebody thought that the grooves were submerged during the Stone Age. Which proved completely wrong. Therefore professor Bengt Gustafsson in Uppsala University organized the above mentioned symposium . "There was a Symposium at the University of Uppsala discussing the age of the Gotlandic grooves on May 23, 1991. It had been maintained that most of the Gotlandic grooves were below water during the Stone Age. Archeology professor Bo Gräslund, who was present confirmed with great force the uncertainty in the uplift theory and that the water level was much lower during the Stone Age. Professor Gräslund and the professor in geology Lars-König Königsson had discussed this for many years. Gräslund also confirmed that he the same day had been in contact with Königsson. Königsson had then stated that the Gotlandic uplift does not follow current theories and that it also is little explored. http://195.67.126.28/ga/arkiv/view.php?id=902"

I am glad to hear what help you can give but I can't accept wild speculations when there are edited references.

Stavgard (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

I'd like to start a new section and focus on improvements to the article. Can I ask that anyone who is unhappy with the current state of the article makes a single, short, specific suggestion here to improve it. Ideally perhaps pick a phenomenon or a finding that is out there in the literature but is currently missing from the article. Please draft a sentence or two (ideally including a reference) and (to avoid edit wars on the article) post it here so we can help formulate it.

Remember, I'm talking brief, encyclopaedic, material that adds to the article - not a lengthy piece of background material. Maybe along the lines of "Some authors {references 1 and 2} have said ABC but others (references 3 and 4} disagree and say XYZ." Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Kim you haven't read my long explanation on Talk. I will here some short points. What you have reveresed to is a lot of nonsense. I have given sources. Here are the most important

There is a ref Torsten Mårtensson: Sliprännornas praktiska bruk. This article was immidiately refuted in Fornvännen 1937 wihout mention here. [1]

” ^ Lindström, Jonathan. 1997. Fornlämningarnas orientering på Gotland: en kritisk granskning av den arkeoastronomiska tolkningen av slipskåror samt en studie av riktningsfördelningen hos öns forntida gravar, hus och medeltida kyrkor. Till Gunborg.Dept of Archaeology, University of Stockholm. Pp. 497-508.” This article does not have the standard to be included as a reference. Lindström begins his article with a correct statement of Fil Dr Göran Henrikssons astronomical interpretation of the grinding grooves. Lindström goes on to say that he does not believe in Fil Dr Göran Henrikssons astronomical interpretation, which is his right. Then Lindström tries to prove that Fil Dr Göran Henriksson is wrong from his own criteria, which lacks scientific basis. Lindström does not mention Fil Dr Göran Henriksson’s statistical analysis with 94% probability of astronomy or Fil. Kand. Sören Gannholm’s corresponding tests. He rounds off with the statistics of tombsdistribution. It has such large margins of error that it does not prove anything. What is interesting about Gunborg Jansson, to whom the book is dedicated is that she has dug a grave in Visby where the dead lay his hand on a stone with an grinding groove. The tomb dates from about 3300 BC.

^ Swanström, Lennart. 1995. Slipskåror och järnhantering på Gotland. Gotländskt arkiv 67. Visby. pp. 11-18 Swanström takes it for granted that the grooves are secondary to the pictures on the picture stones without making a scientific investigation. When now the stones have been scientific investigated Swanström’s arugument falls and this student thesis on the second level does not qualify as ref.

There was a Symposium at the University of Uppsala discussing the age of the Gotlandic grooves on May 23, 1991. It had been maintained that most of the Gotlandic grooves were below water during the Stone Age. Archeology professor Bo Gräslund, who was present confirmed with great force the uncertainty in the uplift theory and that the water level was much lower during the Stone Age. Professor Gräslund and the professor in geology Lars-König Königsson had discussed this for many years. Gräslund also confirmed that he the same day had been in contact with Königsson. Königsson had then stated that the Gotlandic uplift does not follow current theories and that it also is little explored. http://195.67.126.28/ga/arkiv/view.php?id=902

” Certain late 1st millennium picture stones on Gotland carry grooves that have been made after the relief of the stones was carved, which shows the grooves to be late. Likewise with the level above current sea surface of the lowest grooved outcrops on the island, that shows them to be no older than AD 1000 judging from post-glacial shoreline displacement.” Here again Rundkvist is out of touch with science. The grooves on picture stones are scintificly proven to be primary to the picture stones and accordingly older than the picture stones. http://www.kulturarvgotland.se/node/3277

Stavgard (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Stavgard (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Stavgard (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)