Talk:Megalith

message: Somehow I find it hard to believe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:E982:EF00:BDF4:370A:1FB2:4421 (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you'll find any. Claims for megaliths and flying saucers and all sorts of nonsense, yes, but what developed in American were the [[Mound Builders|mound building cultures, dating as early as perhaps 3500 BCE which were equally sophisticated. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  No American Megaliths? 

message: Akaulins, you have made some edits which I disagree with and which require substantiation.
Your implication the megalithic technology dispersed from a central point needs backing up or at least a discussion of separate regional development.
The rest of your additions do not seem to be closely connected with megaliths, instead being a general view of the Neolithic and Bronze Age and I think it should be moved there for further discussion. In brief:
Although Neolithic settlement sites are relatively sparse you should mention the 'absence of evidence' arguments of Megaw and Simpson and Burl's roundhouses. The precise domestic role of the Neolithic longhouse may be open to question but when coupled with the large number of ambiguous Neolithic structures found in Britain then there is a body of evidence you are ignoring. See also Skara Brae. adamsan  18:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akaulins 

message: Can someone verify the edits regarding Nabta Playa ? I refer you to User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. Wizzy…☎ 09:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nabta Playa

message: this article is t laid out well and could include all the info contained in Megalithic architectural elements which is in it self a merge of several small articles scattered in a rather unhelpful cat called Category:archaeological features which clashes with the term feature in Category: Methods and principles in archaeology Boris 10:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: proposal to merge megalithic archetictural elements with this

message: Meta: Reddi, can edit one article without putting 200 entries into the history? Also these drive-by article extensions done by Google books searches without actually reading the references you give, are essentially unasked for.
IMHO the further reading sections should give our readers some advice for good summary article and books on different levels. We cannot seriously attempt to create a complete bibliography here, but perhaps we can link existing ones? Also, references and further reading applying to specific subtopics should better be given at the corresponding sub-articles.
Pjacobi 11:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahem 

message: Removal of primary sources, secondary sources, and tertiary sources. J. D. Redding
Any reason for the ignorant (eg., a lack of knowledge or uninformed) and POV (aka., anti-paranormal) edit WMC?
Mainly about stonehenge ... but has info about megaliths in general ... and astroarchaeology ....
* Lancaster Brown, P. (1976). Megaliths, myths, and men: an introduction to astro-archaeology. New York: Taplinger Pub. Co.  
About megaliths and alil' astro-archaeology ..
* Kaulins, A. (2003). Stars, stones and scholars: the decipherment of the megaliths as an ancient survey of the earth by astronomy. Victoria, B.C.: Trafford Pub.
Paranormal research about megaliths ... will be used to cite occultic info ...  
* Knight-Jadczyk, L. (2005) The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive. Red Pill Press.  	
Paranormal research about megaliths ... will be used to cite occultic info ...  
* Wilson, Colin (2006). Mysteries: An Investigation Into the Occult, the Paranormal And the Supernatural. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., 667 pages. 
J. D. Redding 14:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be added as source it should have been read and used by a contributor. Nor robot-like harvested from Google books. --Pjacobi 18:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added them as sources ... I did read many pages of these.  I was going to use them.  'Fact based research (eg., All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.) with the help of Google books. J. D. Redding 01:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sigh

message: *Merge   I propose that European Megalithic Culture be merged into this article because that article is mainly about structures rather than culture and the limited mentions of culture are an uncited combination of opinion, speculation and OR which could better be summarised in one section in this Megalith article. Abtract 15:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment this experiment looks promising. Abtract is on the right track I'd say. Grunty Thraveswain 21:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the timeline? And why shouldn't people who want to find out about European megaliths have their own article? TharkunColl 23:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about timeline, I overlooked it but have added it now. As to "why shouldn't people ... have their own article?" I just can't see it. We are not here to provide articles aimed at special interest groups, we are trying to create an encyclopedia where information is grouped into articles that hang together around a central topic - I believe "Megalith" does just that. If certain sections were ever to get too large in the future, they could be hived off to separate articles - though there is no sign of that yet. We have the opportunity to create quite a useful article here, one where info on a near world-wide phenomenum is grouped together in such a way where the reader can easily compare megaliths from around the world, can discover how and when these structures were built, how methods spread, what they were used for etc. Redirects will lead special interest readers here.Abtract 23:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks really good, Abtract! Good job!  This is shaping up to be just what I had in mind - a solid article that covers all the bases, and could eventually reach FA status.  TharkunColl, I have to agree with Abtract here, one well-rounded and thoroughly-sourced article serves the 'pedia far better than a scattered collection of unsourced and redundant ones.  We can easily make redirects to the sub-sections, for those searching for info from a particular culture. Example: European megaliths -> Megalith#European megaliths, etc. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do actually rather like the way the new article is shaping up, and have no further objections to the merger.TharkunColl 08:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal

message: Kerala's megalithic monuments linked to the Mediterranean?
A wide range of megalithic burials recently discovered in some northern districts of Kerala (India) during a research project have thrown light on possible links between the Mediterranean and Kerala coasts in the Stone Age between 6000 BCE and 2000 BCE. The researchers, however, say further studies and analysis are required to establish the thesis. Interestingly, the finds were unearthed at a time when the researchers have firmly established the maritime links between the Mediterranean region with Kerala since ancient times, thanks also to the shards of Roman amphora that have recently been dug up from Pattanam near Kochi, close to the ancient port town Muziris.
     The existence of a large number of port-holed cists and dolmens in Palakkad, Wayanad and Idukki districts seeks to show that the megalithic people who lived in these parts of the world were navigators who migrated to Kerala from the Mediterranean region by sea route. V.P. Devadas, principal investigator, UGC [University Grants Commission] Major Research Project on Megaliths of Kerala, says that the archaeological studies on Malabar mainly depend on its megalithic culture. Though there is uniformity in the character of the megalithic burial monuments in Malabar, there are some differences in the mode of construction.
     Dr. Devadas says that Kerala is rich in megalithic monuments, viz. rock-cut caves, rock-cut pits, urn burials, umbrella stones (kodakkal, hat stones (toppikkal), slab cists, port-holed cists, dolmens, menhirs, multiple hood stones and stone circles. Among these monuments, the most typical of the megalithic burials is the port-holed cist. A port-holed cist is a box-like structure, made of four or five dressed granite orthostats or slabs kept upright either in the clockwise or in the anti-clockwise direction on a floor slab with a cap-stone cover. The box-like structure has a port-hole on the front slab, the hole facing the east.
     In the large cist cemeteries of Wayanad, the port-holed cists are found facing the east. This type is mainly confined to the granite highland region of Kerala. Port-holed cists are abundantly seen at Muppuzha in Palakkad district, Ayiremkolli, Kuppakolli, Krishnagiri, Vythiri and Mangalamkarp in Wayanad district and Marayur in Idukki district, according to Dr. Devadas' study. There are a large number of port-holed cists at Pathirikunnu in Krishnagiri at the foothills of the Chembra peak near Meppadi. There are about 200 such cist burials in an area of 1,500 acres near the Edakkal Hills.
http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/003744.html
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL25355M/Kerala_megaliths_and_their_builders  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.129.62 (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megaliths of Kerala India 

message: There should be some kind of comparison done on the link distribution of the Megalith sites and the pattern of the spread of the root "Karn" throughout the languages spoken in the areas affected. The most notable examples are the presence of the root in the site names of several of the Megalith sites, themselves. In English the word "cairn" means stone monument. A similar root appears in Basque, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Phoenician, Maltese (I think), Arabic, Hebrew, Coptic.
The latter also raises the question of whether the stone monuments in Egypt, itself, should not be included as part of spread of the Megalith culture; the most notable example, of course being Karnak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnak).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.251.17 (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Of course"? I do not find any serious etymology for Karnak. Please submit a link if you have one. Otherwise is might just as easily be sourced from carnalis. Kortoso (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megalith Culture vs. Spread of the Root "Karn" & Inclusion of Egypt 

message: Hello, it would be good if the reference (seen as Hyperlink) would be more precise : e.g. Corsica : leads one to the island page, and not to some archeological site. Please add at least site names so that one has a chance to locate interesting information.
Renebach (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crosslinking - Hyperlink 

message: This timeline is a westeuropean view. completly stupid.
 
Megalithic start in central france (La hoguette culture) ca, 5200 BCE with direction to England/Doggerland/German coast.
I think the early english megalithik is a false friend action, inspired by english/irish patriots.
Middle Rhein (michelsberger culture) start around 4700, belgium, netherlands ca 4500 BCE, assimilate by TRB culture 4300 BCE and expansion frisia to jutland 3800 BC, north-east germany ca. 3600 BC,  swede around 3300 BC and TRB->England ca. 3300 BC (second megalith phase).
The portugal megalithic is a other culture what comes from northern africa!!! start around same time like france central.
It seems the westiberian megalithic had nothing to do with france megalithic but is not sure. Check the north african coast megalithic.
These scenario is of basis from Prof. Johannes Mueller, Uni Kiel. He had new calibrated european megalithic 1997.
Bell beaker had begun a new megalitic wave around 2800/2400 BC. They are big fans of megalithic monuments, but not the first developer of megalith tradition.
Megalithicer was not the ancient forefathers of celts. That is only patriotism but not science.
And i miss the dates of east- and southern european megaliths (especialy the late megalith construction in Northern caucasus and pontus) region. Do wikipedia think they have not megalith construction?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.159.60.40 (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline of megalithic construction 

message: Are there any studies out there about Megaliths in the Old Testament? If I recall correctly the patriarchs in Genesis set up Dolmens to commemorate important events. While historians and archaeologists don't like viewing the Bible as a historical document it is a mistake to completely ignore it, the Old Testament after all provides good insight into ancient culture in the Middle East.
:Is it historically verifiable with secondary sources?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordon410 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Testament 

message: There is mention of a "study" that speaks of a "living megalithic culture" in Madia Gonds, but there's no evidence that anyone has read this article; the name of the study's originator is not mentioned, for instance. Kortoso (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madia Gonds? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Megalith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050917065532/http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn to http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120312110327/http://www.pretanicworld.com:80/monuments.html to http://www.pretanicworld.com/Monuments.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A megalith is a large stone that has been used to construct a structure or monument, either alone or together with other stones.
Construct a structure? Maybe not so repetitive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordon410 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead revision 

message: Would be great if somebody could include Zorats Karer megalithic monument in Armenia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorats_Karer
The geo-temporal structure of the current article is quite complex, could not decide where to put it. Geographically it is in South Caucasus region of Eurasia, was created about 7,500-year ago according to official website http://www.carahunge.com/#
Armatura (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Zorats Karer in Armenia

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Megalith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930185414/http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/007299634x/student_view0/glossary.html to http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/007299634x/student_view0/glossary.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090503110521/http://hej3.as.utexas.edu/~www/wheel/africa/nabta_01.htm to http://hej3.as.utexas.edu/~www/wheel/africa/nabta_01.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223085745/http://www.toraja-sulawesi.com/lore-lindu.html to http://www.toraja-sulawesi.com/lore-lindu.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610111040/http://arts.anu.edu.au/arcworld/resources/cult/aocult.htm to http://arts.anu.edu.au/arcworld/resources/cult/aocult.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070110000913/http://megalith.ru/en/ to http://www.megalith.ru/en/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I spent some time updating, correcting and expanding this section. I hope it's not too long, but I felt it needed some amplification... This is my first stab at a somewhat larger editing job here (=at Wikipedia), and I frankly must say there are certain complications. In particular, inserting the references has taken me hours! The rules are so complicated and full of byways and exceptions, that I finally gave up trying to master all the templates and formats, and simply wrote the reference into the note as best I could. Most or all of the necessary information is there, however, so any genius who knows how to do this correctly is welcome to the job (if you have some good tips for a newbie, feel free to write them on my talk page). Next time around, I'll try writing the entire text in MFW (My Favorite Wordprocessor), and then copy and paste into Wikipedia. I'll also check out the alternative interface I've discovered is there somewhere. It may at least be better for proofreading and small corrections. Cheers! Filursiax (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early stone complexes in eastern Turkey. (Help with reference formatting?) 

message: Surely there should be a section discussing South American megaliths considering there is a focused discussion for Europe, Africa, Asia, Middle East, Micronesia and Polynesia. The megaliths at San Agustin, Colombia surely is of significance and I would assume many others exist on the continent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:537D:D100:D5A8:A2BC:6E57:59F5 (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No discussion of South American megaliths? 

message: English 103.70.197.146 (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is known as megalithic monuments