Talk:Megaliths

message: The definition given of a megalith in the opening paragraph has several problems. First, it is vague. It defines a megalith as a large building stone, which is just a translation of the word and not a definition. Nothing is provided in regard to weight, mass, size, etc. to give its limits. If there is subjectivity as to what qualifies as a megalith, then the intro should say so. Also, the definition contradicts what is stated elsewhere in the article by saying that megaliths are from prehistoric times. The article includes examples from historic times. What are the time limits for megaliths? Do they include large stones used for building in the present?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donbodo (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear definition

message: If this article looks similar to Megalith, European Megalithic Culture and/or Megalithic tomb, it's supposed to. This is the proposed result of merging those three articles, to be later moved to Megalith, or left at this location, depending.  For more on how we got to this place, see: Talk:Megalith#Merge Proposal - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the river, moutains and other koni places, may be related to the people who construted stonehenge. We are on wikipedia you cant delete the knowlege. Do you know. that is what koni means.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.200.209 (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think that's not knowledge, but speculation. Speculation of that kind could, perhaps be included in a separate section, or as its own article "linguistic theories concerning European prehistory" or some such. But the question is, do you have any quotable references? athinaios 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Athinaios, what i mean knowledge is the translation of the term koni from esperanto.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.200.209 (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, what? Esperanto is an artificial language developed in the 1870s and 1880s, on the basis of several, mostly European, languages. In the context of the European Neolithic, it is irrelevant. athinaios 08:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About this article

message: This can be found on the original talk pages at:
*Talk:Megalith
*Talk:European Megalithic Culture
*Talk:Megalithic tomb  
Abtract 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-merge talk

message: Thanks to User:Abtract for setting things up. Once we get things going, I'd like some opinions from some editors on the following passage regarding an African megalithic feature at Nabta Playa:
The presence among populations of the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts from Morrocco and Portugal to Scandinavia or even Ireland (in areas beyond the phoenician,arab or roman rule)of male lineages connected to the Peoples of mediterranean North Africa,with the Y-chromosome haplotype E3b in different subclades,could confirm the earlier suspicions of scholars about the spread along the Navigation routes of north African ideas,cults,know-how,and probably members of this obscure Culture of the Prehistory of Human kind.
I'm not sure what it means. Anyone? Perhaps the passage could be rewritten. In the new article, the above passage is among the most puzzling. I could be mistaken, but the passage above doesn't appear in the article on Nabta Playa. Can anyone provide a source for this?Grunty Thraveswain 00:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passage of Concern 

message: Hi. Good job on the merger!
I have an issue with the reference to recent theories on genetics and the "spread" of megalithic "culture" in northwest Europe. First of all, there is certaibly no scholarly consensus on those ideas. The "is otherwise inexplicable" bit at the end of that paragraph is tricky. Does anyone here know enough genetics to ascertain whether that is really the case? From what I know of the field, everything is always otherwise explicable. The other thing, much cimpler, is that there is no real reference. Yes, there's an inline citation of "Gatto et al, 2007", but we are never told what or where the publication might be. Surely, such a radically new view must be supported properly? athinaios 06:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I wasn't sure what to do with that.  Since we have that confusing cite now copied here on the talk page, I say we hide that "cite" and flag that statement for citation. If no citation is forthcoming in the next few days (week, tops) I say we remove it.  But if you think it's simply unsourceable, cut the statement now. Feel free to improve the section, btw; I was mostly just doing the first layer of cleanup last night, there's still a lot of work needed.  For example: a number of redundancies left over from the merge.  Some things can be restated a bit from the intro to the sub-sections, but some other stuff is too redundant.  - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 17:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More genetic issues 

message: Some of the very early religious sites in Eastern Turkey, from the very very beginning of the Neolithic, include architecture that could be described as megalithic. In the 9th millennium BCE! Göbekli Tepe and Nevali Cori are the key examples. They are not normally included in discussions of megaliths (I think, partially because they were only discovered relatively recently), but by definition we should probably mention them on this page. Any opinions? athinaios 16:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, ”The archaeologists estimate that up to 500 persons were required to extract the 10-20 ton pillars (in fact, some weigh up to 50 tons) from local quarries and move them 100 to 500m to the site.” Civilization is like a river it comes from the sources.--Conistorgis 09:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Anatolia 

message: I had a quick skim through the article and didn't see any explanation of how these megaliths were contsructed.  (If I missed it, then this information really needs to be in a titled section of its own.)  Readers will be interested to know how the construction was accomplished with primitive technology. —Psychonaut 08:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if you look are the port of Caesaera built much later by the Romans, they used a type of 
"slip block construction" - the same as you see in modern high rise towers - where you use over and over a frame you slip upwards and pour into it a form of concrete. (they did that at port of Caesarea)
and so if you extrap that same tyupe of construction e.g. to the great pyramid OR to ALL the megaliths
the mystery is solved... (witness also: the 200 ton foundation block in the foot of the Wall at Jerusalum - ab the largest stone used in construction?)
/s tyroan the architect the nautonier, the head dawg of all y'all... 99.162.178.52 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 18:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method of construction 

message: Can people please stop changing the usage of BCE versus BC in this article without discussing or explaining why they do so? Wikipedia policy (see here) demands that articles be internally consistent, but does not favour one convention over the other. It explicitly states that "it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason". 
This article (Megaliths) was started using BC. It is the descendant of three parent articles. One of those (Megalith), used BCE, the two others (Megalithic tomb and European Megalithic Culture) initially used BC. On those grounds, it should continue to use BC.
So, either leave it as it is, or give a good reason why a change is useful or necessary, or spend your wiki time doing something constructive. Thanks. athinaios 09:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC versus BCE 

message: Why is this article title plural?  That is against Wikipedia policy. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has since been moved to the singular Megalith however this redirect's talk page should remain for proper attribution purposes, unless someone wants to do a complicated histmerge. -- œ™ 00:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why plural?