Talk:Snoldelev Stone

Norse history and culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Denmark Low‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Transcription[edit]

I'm not sure about the transcription, I only found þulaR a salhauku[m] in transcription, and added the rest by looking at the image. dab (ᛏ) 09:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date[edit]

I find it unlikely that the stone should date to the 7th century. It shows fully developed Younger Futhark, and should thus date to the 9th century at the earliest. dab (ᛏ) 09:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material[edit]

What are the inscriptions made of? In the photo it looks like a fat line of string or thin rubber... Ingolfson (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are made of painted scratches in the rock.--Berig (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have is that they seems RAISED in the pictures. Scratches should look deep, not raised. Any idea why this is? Ingolfson (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably because the modern paint used for these stones usually seems to be pretty thick. Still, Berig is right, they're incisions in the rock that have been painted. The stones were often originally painted similarly. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's due to the choice of red paint in Denmark. In Sweden, it is usually falu red.--Berig (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's because the lighting is from below, leaving shadows on the bottom side of the scratches instead of the top. You can see in this picture how it looks with more natural lighting. 72.195.132.12 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]