Talk:Grooves (archaeology)

Modern age whetstones

It seems Swedish groove-stones are related to Agriculture. Stones outside of Sweden may be similar, or different: As examined in source 1 (article in Swedish), these marks in stone can be recreated by the "polishing" of brownstone whetstones upon the rock. Specifically, brownstone whetstones for Scythe sharpening. The act of "polishing" serves to shape a whetstone, so that the blade can be sharpened best possible. A stone axe was tested also: it did not recreate similar marks, and was not being sharpened in the process. The stones examined in this study were from southern Sweden, not Gotland, and local preferences for sizes and shapes of scythe-whetstones were used. A local first hand account of the practice is referenced. The author states/speculates that the Gotland grooves are probably of the same nature. As scytes are no longer used much in agriculture, this practice has stopped. Scytes were very common in agriculture for centuries, and as recent as last century. This does not exclude that some stones may have had other uses. (above is IIRC, my original comment edited as I've recently re-read source1) clsc (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

References

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)

References

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)

Kim, I am waiting for you to add our references as suggested. Documents accepted by the Gotlandic Heritage Board falls as far as I can see within the allowed references. If you want to have a balanced article our suggested references should be included. Here is not the place to argue which is right or wrong.

Kim, our my suggestion I haven't deleted anything of our opponent's writing. We have only added our references which are necessary to have a balanced article. We don't insist on deleting Swanströms article which is a student thesis, second level. It does not hold scientific standard and is not published on the digital archive of Gotländskt Arkiv (The Gotlandic Heritage Board). It is up to you to decide if it should be in. I suggest you replace the last two paragraphs with the following::

Some archaeologists maintain that 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. [citation needed] The article in Gotländskt Arkiv "Nya undersökningar av bildstenen från Othemars i Othem" shows that there exist parts of a sail from a ship hewn into the bottom of a groove which means that the groove must be older than the picture [20] . 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. It was confirmed with great force the uncertainty in the uplift theory and that the water levels on Gotland varied during the Stone Age with very low water varied with very high water. Gotland does not follow the Swedish mainland as it does not rest on hard rock. Stavgard (talk) 12:31, 5 March 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. [9]

” ^ Lindström, Jonathan. 1997. Fornlämningarnas orientering på Gotland: en kritisk granskning av den arkeoastronomiska tolkningen av slipskårorrecent 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)

First, Torsten Mårtensson: Stavgard claims the article by Mårtensson has been "refuted" by a second article by Lidén, which shows that Stavgard does not understand how the science of history and archaeology works. This is not mathematics, you can not make simple refutations.

For example, Lidén's attempts to claim that the grooves are prehistoric are based on that some of the stones have by local residents been claimed to be covered by earth and grass until relatively recently. This ignores all the stones who are *not* covered, and his explanation, that the grooves therefore must be prehistoric, ignores that the stones can have been covered by human activity. It also ignores that several of these stones would have been located deep under water in prehistoric times, meaning that they impossibly can be prehistoric.

So, Lidén's article does not "refute" anything. It argues that he stones are prehistoric. But it does not in any way, shape or form refute that they are later in date. Lidén's article can therefore be used as a reference to those who argues that the stones are prehistoric, but it does not refute Mårtenssons article or make it impossible to use it as a a source.

Second, Lindström, Jonathan. 1997: This is an article about an archaeological topic by an archaeologist, published by the the institute of archaeology on the University of Stockholm, in a collection of articles peer-reviewed by two archaeologists. It is as such a perfect and prime example of a reliable source on the subject. Stavgard's claim that is does not have the "standard" to be included is based solely on the fact that the article argues against Stavgards position on the topic, a position based on wishful thinking and the utter refusal to acknowledge facts that disagrees with him.

Third: Swanström, Lennart. Here Stavgard doesn't even attempt to critisize the article as a source, but instead attempts to explain why the article is incorrect, showing that he still, despite many patient attempts from several editors, have not read the explanations of how Wikipedia works. It doesn't matter if he convinces us here at Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors are not the arbiters of truth. Wikipedia summarizes the current state of knowledge in an area. Stavgard needs to convince the world of archaeology that he is correct, not Wikipedia. If he does that, then Wikipedia will follow. But of course, the world of archaeology is apparently ruled by "shady organizations" who have been "banned from Swedish media" and otherwise out to hide The Truth.

What horrible secret can lie behind the age of grinding grooves that the conspiracies that rule the world have to hide the truth? :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself, but: 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. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It is disturbing with unsubstantiated speculations like this: ” 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,”

The archaeologist Harald Hansson writes in his KUNGL. VITTERHETS HISTORIE OCH ANTIRVITETS AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR, DEL 37:1

GOTLANDS BRONSÅLDER Av HARALD HANSSON ST O C K HO L M 1927

PÅ AKADEMIENS FÖRLAG

On page 118 he writes: ”Lau och Garda. På gränsen, 700-800 m. SV om gränsskälet Lau-Garda-Alskog,

strax N om ”Digerror” i Garda (diam. 38 m., h. 5 m.), f e m i ett fält, varav två omedelbart efter varandra; N--S, alla

utom en med höga stenar; högsta stävsten 1.40 m.; längd 4-8.5 m.; vid en stäv ligger en sten med 4 slipräfflor, som enligt NORDIN (hans fascikel II) stått rest som stävsten (B. SCHNITTGER; NORDIN anförda ställe).

Here we have a stone with 4 grooves reused in a Bronze Age stone ship.

This is also speculation: ” 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.” There a various picture stones with grooves which clearly show that rock with grooves have been broken and used as picture stones although in some case parts of broken grooves are still visible. One such stone is published in Gotländskt Arkiv 1988, page 47. Where it is very clear that the slab with grooves has been broken from the outcrop and made to a picuture stone although some part of a groove has been left. There is a picture stone in Hejde close to the church where the root carries broken grooves. It was only discovered when the stone fell and the root became visible. Stavgard (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I sure even a keen amateur such as you recognize that archaeology has had an almost astonishing development during the 20th century, and things written in 1927 can't be taken as representative for modern archaeology. It certainly does not override anything written in 1995 or 1997, which are the dates of the sources used for the statement you disagree with.

And what you mean by "unsubstantiated"? A statement that has *two* reliable sources is not "unsubstantiated" in any reasonable sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin, if you prefer an amateur archaeologist like Jonathan Lindström to professional archaeologists lika Harald Hansson, B. SCHNITTGER and NORDIN and disregard the actual stone as part of a Bronze Age stone ship it is no point discussing on Wikipedia. Stavgard (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

My name is not Martin. If you can't discuss this seriously and without personal attacks, I suggest you stop altogether. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hansson’s book is his doctoral thesis which was presented at the University of Uppsala whilst the articles by Jonathan Lindström and Lennart Swanström are articles not refereed Stavgard (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Stavgard (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Rather than engaging further in general discussion on the topic, we need to focus on the article. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. I think the way forward is for a specific, probably quite short, suggestion to be made in the form of a draft of some new or amended material for the article. If that were posted here for people to comment upon, it would be really helpful. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, good idea. I suggest we just delete the last part

"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." Stavgard (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The last section needs a source. But if once can be found I see no reason to delete them. The two first paragraphs have reliable sources and are NPOV. There is no reason to delete them. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

These two sources are not refereed and do not prove that the doctoral thesis of Harald Hansson are wrong "^ 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."

If they can't prove that Harald Hansson is wrong they don't belong here. Doctoral thesis have higher value than unrefereed articles. Stavgard (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be refereed to be reliable. The BBC is a reliable source but not peer-reviewed! Moreover it's not the case that "If they can't prove that Harald Hansson is wrong they don't belong here." On the contrary, reporting disagreement between differing (or mutually contradictory) sources by saying "A says one thing, but B reports another" is perfectly fine. We don't have to (and can't) make a judgement about who is right; we simply report the disagreement. We do need a source for the late 1st millennium stones but in my view the three sources cited in the first paragraph can all stay. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Gotländskt Arkiv is a book of texts on Gotland and the history of Gotland published yearly by the Historical Museum of Gotland and "Gotlands fornvänner", the historical society of Gotland. It is an edited collection of mostly scholarly texts. It is *at least* as refereed as the texts Stavgard pushes as reliable sources from the Russian meeting of astro-archeologists. This is just an example of Stavgards double standards. Everyone that agrees with him are reliable and refereed and professional, and everyone that disagrees with him are charlatans involved in some sort of giant conspiracy.

"Gotländskt arkiv" are, simply put, reliable sources on the history of Gotland. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim. however the stone with the 4 grooves built into a Bronze Age stone ship, which Harald Hansson in his doctoral thesis refers to, is there to be viewed by anyone. That means that the grooves are older than the Bronze Age stone ships. To argue otherwise is quasi-science Stavgard (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

We are not here to make arguments. We are here to report what the sources say. If two or more reliable sources say contradictory things, we report both/all without making a judgement on who is right. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard: You need to understand that opinions of Wikipedia authors are irrelevant, as Wikipedia shouldn't reflect our opinion. Convincing us is pointless. Even if you would convince me that the grooves are stone-age, this does not change my opinion about what the article should say, because the article should reflect what reliable sources say, not mine or your opinion.

Is this unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So, why do you not want to refer to Harald Hansson's doctoral thesis that he observes a block with 4 grooves built into a Bronze Age stone ship. A stone that is still there.

KUNGL. VITTERHETS HISTORIE OCH ANTIRVITETS AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR, DEL 37:1

GOTLANDS BRONSÅLDER Av HARALD HANSSON ST O C K HO L M 1927

PÅ AKADEMIENS FÖRLAG

Stavgard (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP gives a pretty definitive view on theses when it says: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." If Hansson's was a doctoral thesis and is publicly available we can refer to it, but if that date of 1927 is when the thesis was completed it does somewhat reduce the weight we can place upon it in contrast to more recent works. Not saying we can't cite it - just that it can't be privileged over newer work. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't see an outdated article from 1927 as authoritative for the same reason that we don't see books articles from the 19th century that claims the atom is indivisible or medieval claims that the sun circles the earth as authoritative. This was explained above. What is unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure we can square this circle. The 1927 thesis definitely represents one view which was held early last century. We can report it as such and this gives a historical perspective on the development of thinking on the topic. So, a formulation something like "One grinding stone was found built into a Bronze Age ship, amd one early 20th century view was that this indicated that all grinding stones were at least that old {insert Hansson reference here}. Research carried out more recently indicates however that at least some grinding stones must be of more recent origin.....{insert more modern reference/s here}. How does that sound? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be WP:UNDUE, IMO. This is one early source of many. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to list every early speculation on these grooves. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, Suggest the following additions to obtain a balance:

The dates and function of the grooves on Gotland have seen debate between on the one hand some archaeologists, who argue for a High Medieval date and some industrial function, and on the other hand archaeologists who in doctoral thesis point at a stone with grooves built into a Bronze Age stone ship . On the other hand archaeoastronomers 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. The grooves under overhangs in Scania cannot have been used as sightlines in this suggested manner.

Some archaeologists maintain that 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. Fil dr Göran Henriksson has shown that there exist parts of a sail hewn into the bottom of a groove which means that the groove must be older than the picture . 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, together with professor in geology Lars-König Königsson confirmed with great force the uncertainty in the uplift theory and that the water levels varied during the Stone Age, very low water varied with very high water.

Stavgard (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What you are trying to use as reference here is not a published article, but a letter to Gotländskt Arkiv from you. It is most definitely non-refereed, and as such doesn't fulfill the requirements you place on other peoples sources. And using yourself as a reference, published or not is really quite bad taste. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. It has been published by Gotländskt Arkiv as a summary of what happened at the symposium organized by professor Bengt Gustafsson. Gotländskt Arkiv is a trusted source.

Stavgard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC). Stavgard (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The article "Symposium i Uppsala kring de gutniska slipskårornas ålder" published in Gotländskt Arkiv 1991 has the same status as Lennart Swanströms article "Slipskåror och järnhantering på Gotland." published in Gotländskt Arkiv 1995

Stavgard (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If I had thought that somebody would reach back to 1927 to support their views, I would have written "debate in recent decades". Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me also point out that Jonathan Lindström is not an amateur archaeologist. He has worked for years in contract archaeology and at the Historical Museum in Stockholm, and has 63 pieces of work in VITALIS, the main bibliographical database for Swedish archaeology. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Could we try and stick to actually discussing the text of the article and agreeing a consensus? I thought for a moment there we were actually making progress in that direction.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Lennart Swanströms article is one of the main articles of the book. It's status is that of a published paper.

"Symposium i Uppsala kring de gutniska slipskårornas ålder" is published under the "Aktuellt" ("Current") section. It's status is rather that of news, not that of a published article, and it is a summary of the symposium, made by you, a part of the debate. It's published not as a publisjed article, but as "Debate".

I do not believe there is any possibility of you not understanding this and what that means for the articles status as reliable source. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Shall we have a balanced article or not. You are allowed to keep your articles balanced with the added ones. Now we have a good article. Or is your intention to have it censored?

Stavgard (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Again you start discussing me, and coming with personal attacks on me, instead of discussing the article, despite repeatedly being told by an administrator to stop your personal attacks and discuss the article and nothing else. This is not a constructive way forward. You make it impossible to have a constructive discussion with you. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not discussing you. We now have a balanced article with the additions we have suggested. Why can't you accept this?

Lindström is a talented artist. He has been commissioned to illustrate archaeological items. We accept your references ,but then we also want to get our references correctly entered.

Stavgard (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal adds claims based on unreliable sources. That goes against Wikipedia policies. The article definitely can be improved, but it's balance is not improved by your proposals. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Which source is less reliable than your sources? All sources are published in recognized media. Your way to try to censure Wikipedia goes against Wikipedia policies.

You should listen to what Kim said earlier in this debate: "We are not here to make arguments. We are here to report what the sources say. If two or more reliable sources say contradictory things, we report both/all without making a judgement on who is right."

Svenska Vitterhetsakademin and Gotlänskt Arkiv are reliable sources. You are using Gotländskt Arkiv yourself as a source. Should we ban you from using Gotländskt Arkiv?

Stavgard (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, you wrote: "If Hansson's was a doctoral thesis and is publicly available we can refer to it, but if that date of 1927 is when the thesis was completed it does somewhat reduce the weight we can place upon it in contrast to more recent works. "

There are no newer doctoral thesis on this subject. This is the lastest doctoral thesis in the subject I know of. Stavgard (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

But there are many much more recent references of other sorts, it appears. A thesis over 80 years old does not trump these but can certainly be cited as an example of how thinking has developed on the topic over the years. It should be cited, but can't be given undue emphasis as if it is the final and decisive authority on the topic. Please everyone, carry on discussing explicit changes to the article. This page is meant to be a place where we discuss the article, not the topic of the article... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not much of a "thesis" either. He just says that since there are grooves on a stone used in a bronze-age setting, the grooves must be bronze-age or older, completely ignoring the possibility that the grooves was made later. This kind of basic mistake is perhaps excusable in 1927, but not in 2012. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, we are not talking about thesis. We are talking about actual archaeological objects analyzed in this doctoral thesis. In this case it is a stone with 4 grooves built into a Bronze Age stone ship. The stone is still there and the grooves are still there. How can any newer research change that fact? The conclusion Hansson draws is that the grooves must be older than the Bronze Age ship it is part of. It is very difficult for anybody to change that fact. The Gotlandic stone ships are all dated by archaeologists to the Bronze Age.

Stavgard (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

My suggested edit above is entirely consistent with what you say. But we must be very careful not to try to intertpret or synthesise the sources here. We van only report what they say, we can't make inferences (eg because these grooves may be Bronze Age or older, that all grooves are at least as old.) Please make a specific drafting suggestion for some new/amended text to the article. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made a small change in the old version and added the newer research. I have changed to "some archaeologists" as there is a wide split between the archaeologists.

The professors in archaeology that belong to my discussion groupe do not agree with the old writing.

My article in Gotländskt Arkiv is very important as it summarizes what professors Bo Gräslund and Köningson had for views at the meeting. I recently spoke to Bo Gräslund and that is his strong opinion. Therefore this article may not me censored.

The only one who has done research on grooves on image stones is Fil dr Göran Henriksson. Therefore his article in Gotlänskt Arkiv is important. I may point out that he is associated to the archaeological department at the University of Uppsala

I don't put any interpretations in the suggestions.

Therefore I suggest the following following additions to obtain a balance:

The dates and function of the grooves on Gotland have seen debate between on the one hand some archaeologists, who argue for a High Medieval date and some industrial function, and on the other hand archaeologists who in doctoral thesis point at a stone with grooves built into a Bronze Age stone ship . On the other hand archaeoastronomers 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. The grooves under overhangs in Scania cannot have been used as sightlines in this suggested manner.

Some archaeologists maintain that 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. Fil dr Göran Henriksson has shown that there exist parts of a sail hewn into the bottom of a groove which means that the groove must be older than the picture . 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, together with professor in geology Lars-König Königsson confirmed with great force the uncertainty in the uplift theory and that the water levels varied during the Stone Age, very low water varied with very high water.

Stavgard (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, it's very helpful to have an actual draft to work on. There are some stylistic issues as unlike in adademic writing, where we name and credit the author in the main text, this is not how we do it on Wikipedia - so naming authors of sources in the text isn't how we do it, their names go in the references at the end. That's quite a minor point though. The Henriksson cite is still unclear; I think it is referring to a picture of a boat but this is by no means obvious and need to be made so for the article's sake. Reported speech from a symposium is more problematic; conforming "with great force" is your interpretation Stavgard, and not an encyclopaedic way of putting things.

This is not about censorship. "I recently spoke to Bo Gräslund and that is his strong opinion. Therefore this article may not me censored." Recently speaking with someone is not a WP:RS as you well know by now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, I take your point.

I have deleted the names and hope it now will be in accordance with Wikipedia rules:

The dates and function of the grooves on Gotland have seen debate between on the one hand some archaeologists, who argue for a High Medieval date and some industrial function, and on the other hand archaeologists who in doctoral thesis point at a stone with grooves built into a Bronze Age stone ship . On the other hand archaeoastronomers 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. The grooves under overhangs in Scania cannot have been used as sightlines in this suggested manner.

Some archaeologists maintain that 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. The article in Gotländskt Arkiv "Nya undersökningar av bildstenen från Othemars i Othem" shows that there exist parts of a sail from a ship hewn into the bottom of a groove which means that the groove must be older than the picture . 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. It was confirmed with great force the uncertainty in the uplift theory and that the water levels on Gotland varied during the Stone Age with very low water varied with very high water. Gotland does not follow the Swedish mainland as it does not rest on hard rock.

Stavgard (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Harald Hansson's observation in the 1927 book hardly constitutes him taking part in any debate on the issue. To present current scholarly consensus, I suggest we go with debate of the past 40 years or less that explicitly discusses the age and function of the grooves. Thus, as in the current version, "The dates and function of the grooves on Gotland have seen debate in recent decades 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". Martin Rundkvist (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin, I can't believe you are serious. We are talking about an archaeologically established fixture.

Hansson discusses the age of the grooves in various parts of the book. He has never been contradicted. 

Swanström’s article is a student thesis, second level. It does not hold scientific standard and is not published on the digital archive of Gotländskt Arkiv. http://195.67.126.28/ga/arkiv. Therefore Swanström’s ref should be deleted. He has done no independent investigation and has no reference list. Why a 40 year limit. Do you discard all older research that has not been contradicted? Everything written before 1972 is not accepted by you? Ridiculous. Stavgard (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Could I make a crazy suggestion? Neither side here is going to persuade the other to accept your wording, except by constant repetition until somebody dies of boredom. How about both sides trying to edit so as to include the material that your opponent/s want, but in a manner that you find acceptable? That way each person's edit is about something they are willing to accept, rather than something they are not...? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, in my suggestion I haven't deleted anything of my opponents writing. I have only added our references which are necessary to have a balanced article. We don't insist on deleting Swanströms article which is a student thesis, second level. It does not hold scientific standard and is not published on the digital archive of Gotländskt Arkiv. It is up to you to decide if it should be in.

I suggest you replace the last two paragraphs with the following::

Some archaeologists maintain that 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. The article in Gotländskt Arkiv "Nya undersökningar av bildstenen från Othemars i Othem" shows that there exist parts of a sail from a ship hewn into the bottom of a groove which means that the groove must be older than the picture . 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. It was confirmed with great force the uncertainty in the uplift theory and that the water levels on Gotland varied during the Stone Age with very low water varied with very high water. Gotland does not follow the Swedish mainland as it does not rest on hard rock. Stavgard (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that oral tradition about what was said at a symposium 21 years ago can't be used as a reference on Wikipedia. We need authoritative publications. And Kim, I'm sure you'll agree that what we need to do here is make the article reflect scholarly consensus on the matter, not consensus among whoever shows up on the talk page. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin, what stupidity is this. It is minutes taken down at the symposium and published in Gotländskt Arkiv and also approved for inclusion in the digital archive. They have the same status as any scientific document. You are insulting me when you call this oral tradition. I would like you to stop your insults. They don't belong here.

Stavgard (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

" They have the same status as any scientific document." - No they don't, and I explained why. You are not listening to the answers we give you. This is not constructive discussion. You are simply disrupting and tendentious

Also, please learn to WP:INDENT --OpenFuture (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If you call yourself Martin Rundkvist or OpenFuture I couldn't care less. Please stop insulting me!! It is against Wikipedia rules.

Stavgard (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Stavgard for 31 hours as this edit was in clear violation of an extremely explicit warning not to make any further accusations of sockpuppetry. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, I am waiting for you to add our references as suggested. Documents accepted by the Gotlandic Heritage Board falls as far as I can see within the allowed references. If you want to have a balanced article our suggested references should be included. Here is not the place to argue which is right or wrong.

Kim, our my suggestion I haven't deleted anything of our opponent's writing. We have only added our references which are necessary to have a balanced article. We don't insist on deleting Swanströms article which is a student thesis, second level. It does not hold scientific standard and is not published on the digital archive of Gotländskt Arkiv (The Gotlandic Heritage Board). It is up to you to decide if it should be in. I suggest you replace the last two paragraphs with the following::

Some archaeologists maintain that 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. [citation needed] The article in Gotländskt Arkiv "Nya undersökningar av bildstenen från Othemars i Othem" shows that there exist parts of a sail from a ship hewn into the bottom of a groove which means that the groove must be older than the picture [20] . 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. It was confirmed with great force the uncertainty in the uplift theory and that the water levels on Gotland varied during the Stone Age with very low water varied with very high water. Gotland does not follow the Swedish mainland as it does not rest on hard rock.

Stavgard (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this would become more constructive if you stopped seeing Wikipedia policy as something that opposes you, and instead embrace the policies and work within them. We are not your opponents. We are just trying to improve Wikipedia. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

...And getting a lot of abuse in the process. An apology would still not go amiss. Bazj (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, I am still wating for your action to update the article as our opponent will never agree. Therefore it is important that our references also are included in order to balance those of our opponent. This will be a great improvement to the article in Wikipedia

Stavgard (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what action I agreed to undertake that you can't do yourself, Stavgard? If the article can be improved and you can word your improvements in such a way that they are acceptable to other editors, go right ahead and make them. Now you are unblocked you can edit any page you like. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"our opponent"? singular? Is there no end to the accusations of sockpuppetry, though this is a little more subtle than most. Bazj (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup. The first entry "opponent's" was unclear, it could be just his apostrophe that is wrong, but now it is clear that he still claims that we three people are one and the same. Stavgard really needs to be blocked until he starts respecting Wikipedia policies and his fellow editors. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you quite sure that Stavgard isn't my sockpuppet? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Stavgard's violating WP:AGF by calling other editors "opponents", or violating WP:OR given the evidence of his link to stavgard.com/stavar/gotlslipsk/grindinggrooves.html above, perhaps even violating WP:CV given the prominent copyright tag on that page and a couple of phrases copied verbatim, or violating WP:Civil and WP:NPA in his repeated accusations and insinuations of sockpuppetry, but sockpuppeting himself, no. Bazj (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If Stavgard is Mrunds sockpuppet, it would restore my faith in amateur archaeology. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite clear about your purpose to sabotage the article. I am of the impression that you do not want to improve Wikipedia but censure relevant ref:s to this article. In academical circles your actions are considered trying to falsify the free debate.

Archaeoa (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We are a group of academics who deeply detest the actions of some of the signatures here who with all means try to censure Wikipedia

This is completely against WIKIPEDIA rules Stavgard (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, now Stavgard *is* creating multiple accounts. I seriously doubt that group accounts are allowed in the first place, and I don't see how this usage of multiple accounts is allowed. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I have left a final warning for Stavgard on his user page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OF, Kim, I missed your edits while gathering the evidence for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stavgard. Given his accusations against MRund, OpenFuture and me, our response to them, and the warnings Stavgard's received, it's not like Stavgard is unaware of the seriousness of sockpuppetry. For all the time he's taken up over the last month Stavgard has not added anything of value to Wikipedia, just reams of paranoid persecution fantasies. He's exhausted a lifetime of WP:AGF. Time for him to face the music at SPI. Bazj (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Professors in archaeology supporting the calendar theory?

In this edit Stavgard imples that an unnamed professor in archaeology supports the calendar theory. Which professor is that? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Stavgard answered here and refused to name the professor. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think we can call the calendar-theory "a more novel theory". It's not particularly novel. It's most notable feature is that no archaeologists support it, only keen amateurs and a doctor of Astronomy. It's a fringe-theory that unfortunately has been published in some significant publications in Sweden, and hence is notable and must be mentioned. But it needs to be mentioned somehow as a fringe-theory to preserve Wp:NPOV. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a wording which is more accurate but not pejorative, go ahead. I considered as alternatives "a more radical theory", or "a more unconventional theory" or "a more imaginative theory". I chose not to use "a more fringe theory" because it's a judgemental phrase and really needs sourcing if we are to use it. I think anyone reading the article now can read between the lines and (especially if they actually look at the cited sources) make their own judgement about thw weight of opinion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think calling it "alternative" at least avoids the positive implications of "novel", but it still ignores it's a fringe theory. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think 'alternative' is a good compromise, I've changed the article. Good grief, have we reached agreement between us on a wording that we ALL think is an improvement? Wonders will never cease! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Stavgard thinks he can waltz in here with a dogmatic view of The Truth up his sleeves without learning how Wikipedia works, or why it works, and just demand that everyone does what he says. This obviously will not work. But as we can see from above, actually discussing and talking about the issue *does* work. It would be nice if stavgard learnt from this, but I do not have very high hopes.

We should still make it clear that the alternative theory is fringe (to say the least). I'm not sure about the best way to do that. Perhaps outline the arguments and facts for and against the theories? Might be hard without venturing into WP:OR but could be worth a try, or? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Traditional authorities" suggests some bygone age of dusty scholarship. I have changed to archaeologists. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I notice that Martin Rundkvist in the article has deleted the word "some" archaeologists and tries to stress his own point of view that all archaeologists are of the same opinion. This is a severe insult against those archaeologists who don't share Rundkvists point of view. In Wikipedia all are supposed to be represented. Rundkvist has not mentioned a single archaeologist who shares his point of view. Swanströms article is about iron production and does not deal with grooves at all more than it says that there are grooves 50 km away on the other side of Gotland. Lindström has no academic exam. Lindstrom presented the contents of this article at the SEAC symposium inStockholm in 2001. The content was heavily crtizised by the international experts who were present at the meeting. Stavgard (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I would advise everyone to widen their gaze. There are millions of articles in en.wikipedia and here we are discussing one word in one section of one tiny article on a topic of subsidiary interest (grooves) within the larger topic of archaeology. Please everyone, if you're here to write an encyclopaedia then find some of the many gaps that exist which your knowledge of the sources could help fill! This dogged focus on a tiny area is unproductive - worse, it has been a timesink for all concerned. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with Kim's current wording "debate in recent decades between archaeologists who argue for a High Medieval date and some industrial function, and proponents of an alternative theory". Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)