A fact from Berezan' Runestone appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 June 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,890 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine 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.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the NorthGermanic 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
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I would like to point out, that the paper by Braun was published a century ago. It can be easily found in Swedish [1] and Russian [2] translation. The author brought up the unique status of the stone by pointing to the absence of other inscriptions in the East, thus forcing himself into discussion of the reasons for scarcity of the runestones in e.g. Russia. Despite the fact, that the chronological frames given in the paper have been somewhat broadened up over the century passed, one can see that the statistical argument is still sound - the probability to find runestones at the East should be low. However this does not explain why so few runic inscriptions (not just stones) have been discovered in Eastern Europe. The thesis on scarcity of stone material and the tradition of inscribing runes on wood sound more like a speculation. I think one need to emphasize that, and mention instead the modern (2001) studies on dating the inscription by e.g. Melnikova [3]. Macuser (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
