Talk:Dolmen

message: Nice pictures. They look a lot like allee couverte tombs to me though. Dolmen is a very non-specific term to British archaeologists at least, although I understand that the word is used more technically on the continent. When my photos come back from the developers I will add a picture of Kit's Coty which looks more like the simple stone table type.
* I've removed pictures of Hunebed & Dolmen Duh. They don't seem to be Dolmen's to me, but I stand open to correction, so...Coil00 23:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allee Couverte?

message: ====Portaalgraf====
Usually three trilithons. D18 has seven. The middle trilithon contains the entry. Instead of one southern supporting stone there are two, turned 90 degrees, so as to make a little portal. Hence the name.
====Ganggraf====
Ganggraven are usually larger than portaalgraven. D10 has three. (It is therefore very small for a gangraf. It is unfortunately also in very bad condition.) They have an extra, as I understand it slighly smaller, trilithon on the south side in front of the entry, forming a small corridor (gang) leading to the chamber. Hence the name.
8 of the 13 ganggraven have a ring of stones around the mound. In about half of the cases kidney shaped so as to connect to the entry.
====Langgraf====
Langraven are a bit of a mystery. D43 is the only one found in Drenthe, although more have been found in Saksen and Denmark. Contains two hunebedden of three and five trilithons. The name is coined because of the shape of the mound of soil, wich is longer than usual to accomodate for more than one hunebed.
:It consists of a stone circle with one or two Steenkisten (stonecoffins) in it. Kleuske 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Types

message: Langraven are a bit of a mystery. D43 is the only one found in Drenthe, although more have been found in Saksen and Denmark. Contains two hunebedden of three and five trilithons. The name is coined because of the shape of the mound of soil, wich is longer than usual to accomodate for more than one hunebed.
:It consists of a stone circle with one or two Steenkisten (stonecoffins) in it. Kleuske 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Langgraf

message: When Christianity startet to settle in Drenthe, the church, perhaps afraid of the symbolism of the hunebedden, did everything it could to portray them as pagan temples and the contructors as a brutal, savage, inhuman people. Religious fervor cuased a lot of the hunebedden to be destroyed.
The hunebedden had lost their respect. Parts of hunebedden were used for construction. Primitive archaeology was perhaps the final blow.
 cf. Paapeloze kerk, "Priestless church". Kleuske 10:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Destruction

message: Finally I found some! Often schematics give clearer look on a subject than a photo, so here goes:
Floorplan of a hunebed - Not quite "regular" in construction, but it shows the kidney-shaped circle of stones.
I haven't even begun to explore this site (in German and English):
*D13
*D15
*D21 - translated in German.
*D28
*D30
*D43 - shows quite nicely why it's called a langgraf.
*D49
*D53
It may sound a bit silly, but I don't know how to reach these images from the pages.
Compare:
*Allée couverte, for comparison
*Another a.c.
*Very odd a.c.
*A.c.
*A.c. - very different from my mental picture of hunebed...
I don't know if these are proper allées couvertes in the correct meaning, but it may be useful to have a look at them.
Maybe some differences can be explained by the usage of "roamboulders". You see, Drenthe does not contain rock formations from which stone could be delved.
Using these sketches and the photographs it must be possible to construct quite a comprehensive list of dolmen-types. We could even draw schematics with their characteristics. (Not for every dolmen, but for every difference.) Shinobu 23:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schematics! 

message: Okay, the idea behind the following list is like this: by editing and adding we'll find out what the differences are. J.B. Meijer's site contains a litterature list. Some of these are in the collection of my university, but I don't know if I've got clearance to enter that building - or borrow anything. (What with having way too much interests and having to choose one study...)
"ref WIKI" should be used as warning that data comes from Wikipedia and that is should not be considered as a confirmation of the same data.
Also remember that the subclassification is criticized. (As mentioned above.)
*Hunebed (all types)
:2700 en 2400 BC
::ref 
:::ref 
:3600 BC
::ref
:::ref 
:note that both claim C14 sources
:contruction:trilithons
::coverings stones don't extend over the walls
::material used:glacial erratics (source gives 20 tonnes)
:::ref 
::::ref 
::boulders used in similar fashion to Northern German examples
:::ref  
::Recent work suggests use of stone rather than wood was a result of the availability of local materials rather than evidence of cultural links with other megalithic societies as previously thought
:::ref  p193
:originally padded with smaller stones
:originally covered in mound of soil
*Hunebed\Portaalgraf
:short sides closed with closing stones
:one wallstone of (usually) the middle trilithon replaced with two portal stones
*Hunebed\Ganggraf
:short sides closed with closing stones
:one wallstone of (usually) the middle trilithon replaced with two portal stones
:another (may be smaller) trilithon in front of portal
:may have ring of stones
*Hunebed\Langgraf
:short sides closed with closing stones
:one wallstone of (usually) the middle trilithon replaced with two portal stones
:is located together with other tomb(s) in a single elongated mound
:(may have) ring of stones
:Similarities with Medway tombs and long barrows of Northern Germany
::ref 
*Hunebed\Trapgraf
:short sides closed with closing stones
:one wallstone of (usually) the middle trilithon replaced with two portal stones
:small staircase to entry
*Hunebed\G2
:one of the short sides closed off with a closing stone
*(type?) Ireland, Denmark, France, Portugal
:oldest shortly after 5000 BC, apex between 4000 en 3000 BC
:ref
::ref 
*(type?) Belgium
:about 2800 BC
:ref
::ref 
You are encouraged to add things as you see fit.
-----
You have to be very careful when web-crawling. I think this site is a sufficient warning not to believe everything you read in itself. Makes all kinds of claims, states no sources.
On another note, did you know that 27 endangered species of lichen live on hunebedden?  Or that the "Papenloze Kerk" has an interesting more modern history? :-) Shinobu 12:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: I've just walked into the library and no one complained.  contains pretty pictures.
*Großsteingräber = megalithic tombs
*Hünengräber = hunebedden (name coined by Saxo Grammaticus apparently)
The book states that the megalithic tombs in northern Germany are a sub-class of Ganggräben (which is therefore not synonymous with ganggraven).
The book differentiates between 5 classes of tombs:
#Tombs in a rectangular enclosure
#*Don't occur in Drenthe.
#*Are very neat and regular.
#*Length of enclosure 30 to 100 m.
#*Width of enclosure 5 to 9 m.
#*Very neat geometrical proportions (1:5, 1:3). Odd, isn't it?
#*Contains normal hunebed, which is surprisingly tiny compared to the whole structure, and located very off-center (usually to the west).
#In an oval enclosure
#*More or less like some ganggraven.
#Rectangular without enclosure
#*Like portaalgraven.
#Trapezoid
#*Very weird. I can't remember having seen something like it before.
#*Floorplan is trapezoid.
#*Usually broader on eastern side.
#In a mound of soil
#*This is thought to be the original state, I think.
#*Could not find these in the catalogue of the book.
I'll compile this date into the table if I have time to do so. Sometimes German ganggraven have two entry trilithons. The stone circles are never "kidney-shaped" (like D53 and D21), but always oval or rectangular. I have compiled some data from the schematics in the book. Maybe I'll do something with that someday. One of the graves is dated 2500-2000 BC. Don't know if that is typical though. The book also contains a map of locations. Shinobu 16:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hünengräber 

message: I've got enought data to do a sketch of a ganggraf with circle.
This could be used to explain other Drentsche hunebedden as well.
I intend to do one of the German rectangular type 1 things too. Other regional types on demand, provided a few good photos and information on dimensions (length, height, width, perimeter, anything).
Only one problem remains: real life (you know, that room with the blue ceiling). It's getting in the way. Shinobu 16:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant. It is time to start creating some articles! adamsan  21:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sketches/diagrams. 

message: perhaps the article also ought to mention that such dolmens and their sites can be "read" often giving a far greater understanding; such "readings" consisting of
actual reading of the markings as sometimes they are an ancient language as old norse
etc, and also, reading the location or site and its surrounding "imprints" / imprinting
can depcit the persons who were there (this later is a form of psychic reading
but not actually, it is engaging the location e.g. from a broader overhead picture
to read clearly the spiritual "imprint" left behind that is still there 1000s of years later) /s/ lil dol man sr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: reading dolmens

message: I notice that a few non-native speaker have been putting their tuppence in on this article - particularly after looking at this talk page. But one quote from the main page does disturb me:
:"And all around the country, several dolmens stand still, such as the ones of Passebonneau and des Gorces near Saint-Benoît-du-Sault."
The "dolmens stand still" means they are not moving at the moment. "Dolmens still stand", "Dolmens are still standing" or even "Dolmens remain standing" would be more appropriate. TinyMark 19:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving Stones

message: This article was recommended by MTG.com at http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/arcana/1463, so we might see a fair amount of vandalism on the article today.--Bedford 05:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Built by Giants eh? (Sarah777 23:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nov. 15, 2007 Warning

message: At the sci desk we were looking at the alleged 150 tonne size of a capstone with Franamax getting this:
rock is 160-190 lb/ft3, so a 20' x 8' by 1' slab would be around 12 tons. To get 150 tons, you need 50' x 9' x 4' - none of the pics look to be quite that impressive
If no-one objects I'll change it to 1.5 tonne with a few more calculations. check with a math person Julia Rossi (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Weights

message: Korea holds more dolmens than any other places in the world, we need to add more information about Korean dolmens and add map. This article contains so little information about Korea when there are huge dolmen research and studies was conducted from Korea by foreign researchers.--Korsentry 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean dolmen

message: I'm stopping now, but there is clearly enough material for a stand-alone article. See ,  and . The title of one of these, Constructing "Korean" origins: a critical review of archaeology is tantalising. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean dolmen - warrants a separate article 

message: The etymology says:
"the current spelling was introduced about a decade later and had become standard by 1995"
Surely that should be 1895 or 1795, not 1995, right?Shepazu (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd think. Introduced here by the normally reliable Doug Weller. Even the original OED only mentions "dolmin" as a word "inexactly reproduced" in French, & gives no English uses at all. His Dutch source is clearly referring only to French usage and actually says "about 1885".  I will adjust. Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well caught. The source does say 1885 and my fingers were obviously one key over. Johnbod, don't you just hate typos? You changed it to 1895, I've changed it to 1885. Somehow I got diverted from this article and didn't finish my editing as you are indeed correct about the source referring to French usage - I was going to discuss the etymology further but it all got lost. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, the whole area is obviously laid with typo-mines. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dolmin" date

message: There is a dolmen in brazil it's called "Pedra da Santana"(Santana Stone or Saint Anne Stone). The stone is located at the Chapada Diamantina Park - Bahia State ( http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapada_Diamantina )
It's possible to see some pictures of the stone here.
 http://g1.globo.com/VCnoG1/0,,MUL106809-8491,00.html >
The wikipedia pt-br page for the "Pedra da Santana" shows a completely different photo, saying it's in Paramirim, Bahia, so it seems that Brazil has two dolmens.
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedra_da_Santana
http://historum.com/ancient-history/74218-why-dolmens-found-all-around-world-2.html (higher definition picture)
In addition, there's a Brazilian 'stonehenge' in Amapá, north of Brazil. It's a stone circle, but not a dolmen, but worth mentioning.
http://revistaplaneta.terra.com.br/secao/ciencia/no-amapa-uma-stonehenge-amazonica — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.24.1 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 4 June 2015
:We've got an article on that, see Amazon Stonehenge. Needs work, I put some sources on the talk page a while ago. But it's not a dolmen so I'm not sure it should be included. It's not a henge either! Doug Weller (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The Brazilian dolmen

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dolmen. 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/20070225094959/http://www.archeo.ru:80/eng/themes/dolmens/ to http://www.archeo.ru/eng/themes/dolmens/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106162228/http://megalith.ru:80/articles/ to http://megalith.ru/articles/
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) 20:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dolmen. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archeo.ru/eng/themes/dolmens/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://megalith.ru/articles/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070324210503/http://www.heritage.go.kr/eng/her/her_08.jsp to http://www.heritage.go.kr/eng/her/her_08.jsp
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) 03:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified