Talk:Tumulus

message: This table, while useful, doesn't really match the style of the other entries.
Also, and perhaps more importnatly, under the entry for Glauberg, the Era is marked: Early Celtic Age.  I am afraid that I have no idea what is meant by this. I am not one of these "The celts did not exist" people, but assuming there is validity to the concept of a prehistoric Celtic Identity, it would have spanned the Late Bronze age to the Late Iron Age (and possibly earlier).  To that end, I don't quite get the reference... could someone make this more specific to a generally accepted prehistoirc period?
There is a similar problem with the entry for Grave fields, Young Stone Age... is that Neolithic?  
Many thanks and good work.
75.170.51.229 (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Site: Germany

message: To say the least we have banshees, "queens of the barrows"... There are bound to be others... Why there's no mention of them?
:Find the information, make a section, add the information, add a reference. If it isn't referenced, don't add it. --86.146.194.32 17:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Myths related to barrows

message: In response to anonymous editor on 28 January 2006 "130.13.147.5":
*The original author of this article seems to have overlooked some rather important details. First, there are 23 kings (including Saul and David, which the original author left out) that ruled in Jerusalem, and an additional 19 that ruled in Israel (which, during the time, was separate from Judah). Second, the original author implies (by omitting Saul and David and, then, eliminating Jehoram and Zedekiah, while completely ignoring the kings of Israel) that the 19 tumuli that were found correspond with the 19 kings he/she thinks should have them, thus making his/her apparent interpretation (as well as the details) of the Bible appear correct, yet the author does not establish that the stories are true, other than by implication.
Here's the relevant list:
#David
#Solomon
#Rehoboam
#Abijam-Abijah
#Asa
#Jehoshaphat
#Jehoram (not honored at his death; see article)
#Ahaziah (skip his mommy, Athaliah; see article)
#Joash
#Amaziah
#Azariah-Uzziah
#Jotham
#Ahaz
#Hezekiah
#Manasseh
#Amon
#Josiah
#Shallum-Jehoahaz
#Eliakim-Jehoiakim
#Coniah-Jehoiachin
#Mattaniah-Zedekiah (probably not honored; see article)
It is renowned archaeologist Gabriel Barkay who has made the association between these tumuli & the Biblical text.  Note that all 21 were not necessarily honored with tumuli, & not necessarily all tumuli survived the past 2,500 years--Funhistory 03:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Jehoiachin is imprisoned in Babylon for 37 years; although he was released, I seriously doubt that he would have been allowed to return to Palestine.  Nyttend 04:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Judean Kings Who Ruled From Jerusalem Who May Have Been Honored With Tumuli

message: Korea holds much of East Asian Tumulus and special attention is needed. --Korsentry 01:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean Tumulus 

message: Hi,
I just wanted to inform the editors of this page, that a photo of a tumulus in Denmark has just been featured on Commons. I am not terribly knowledgable about tumuli, but thought that it could be relevant for inclusion in this article. In case it is considered relevant for inclusion here, I might try to nominate it for featured picture here as well. As the creator I feel biased, and I would rather prefer if an independent editor would decide for possible inclusion. 
Cheers from cold Denmark, --Slaunger (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common FP of tumulus in Denmark available 

message: How about Krakus Mound and some others listed in :pl:Kurhan? 149.156.201.210 (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tumuli in Poland 

message: I am suggesting the merge of Kurgan to Tumulus since they are covering the same concept. Kurgan is just another word for the same idea. There is  a lot of redundancy in the two articles and quite some confusion because of this in the related articles. If the tumulus article becomes too large, it can be nicely broken down by different cultures, locations etc. as in Sarmatian Tumuli, Thracian Tumuli, Bulgarian Tumuli etc. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. They are not the same. Albeit all kurgans might be tumulus not all tumulus are kurgans (by geographic approach). Tumulus are indeed so common that a sole article can not cover them all. The kurgan article is already large enought to had its own entry. Codrinbs proposed approach of creating articles like Sarmatian Tumuli, Thracian Tumuli, Bulgarian Tumuli is technically correct but is not supported by current praxis. We have to accept that language is not always as rational as we would like it to be, and Wikipedia is not here to correct that. Chiton (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Oppose. I disagree with a merge because Kurgan and Tumulus are both different terms. In the meantime, the article, Kurgan, has already been available in 19 other languages in Wikipedia. Thanks. 78.170.146.13 (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tumulus and Kurgan 

message: I came to 'tumulus' from looking for barrows, as I'm researching burial mounds in Roman Britain. As 'tumulus' is a latin word and might be thought particularly appropriate for (Antique) Roman burial mounds, it's interesting or perhaps odd that there's no real discussion of them - the mention of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Hills being the only example I could see. There seem however to be more than 20, perhaps as many as 26, Roman barrows or barrow-groups in Southern and Eastern Britain, with other know barrows no longer visible (eg 4 destroyed barrows near the 3 surviving ones at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartlow_Hills.
I don't know anything about Roman barrows outside of Britain however, though there doesn't seem to be much information on them here; if anyone knows of information on Roman-period barrows in other locations I suggest we start to compile it.
Markaeologist (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman barrows in Britain? 

message: I don't know much about barrows in other parts of the world but propose at least to tidy up the British section. 
1 - Square Barrows are overwhelmingly found in East Yorkshire and associated with the chariot-burials of the 'Arras Culture'; there doesn't seem to be a wiki for these which is I think a bit of an oversight, they're one of the most spectacular parts of the Iron Age in mainland Britain, so I propose to start rectifying that;
2 - there's no mention of Roman tumuli in Britain despite there being more than 20 known examples;
3 - the list of 'notable examples' goes Neolithic (c. 5,000ybp), Anglo-Saxon (c. 1,500ybp), Bronze Age (c. 4,000ybp) - a more sensible organisation would probably be Neolithic - Bronze Age - (addition of at least 1 Iron Age barrow, c. 3,000byp) - (addition of at least 1 Roman example, c. 2,000ybp) - Anglo-Saxon; this would involve adding two notable barrows or groups and re-ordering the table chronologically.
Markaeologist (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be better to start a separate article. Like most of the global surveys, this is a poor hotch-potch of fairly random information. It seems to lack links to both chambered long barrow and Severn-Cotswold tomb, and no doubt other stuff. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to tidy up British section