Talk:Megaliths

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

plan of the stonehenge site
Archaeology Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Archive
Archives

Talk:Megaliths/Archive1

Talk:Megaliths/Archive2
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] About this article

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Pre-merge talk

This can be found on the original talk pages at:

Abtract 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passage of Concern

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)

[edit] More genetic issues

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)

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)

Athinaios, personly i think you are right. If any one came with genetics, so they can try Halougroup R1b the perfect match all over the world from Chile to the Easter island were we can find megalithics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.200.209 (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The genetic idea, including the mysterious reference to "Gatto et al., 2007" is still included in the African section. As far as I can see, no-one has explained what exactly it refers to. It is also internally inconsistent, as it does not seem to refer to genetics anywhere near Nubia/Egypt. I've made it clear that I, personally, but along with most archaeologists, am sceptical of such a use of genetics. Additionally, I don't think that the idea of, say, a stone circle is specific and original enough to prevent people coming up with it in different places at different times. So, if no further detail is provided, I sugeest we delete or reword the sentences in question. athinaios 09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emergence of the Neolithic

TharkunColl, I think we should re-word your latest edit (I did so provisionally). The Neolithic, defined by agriculture, animal husbandry, and (somewhat later) pottery, emerges in Eastern Anatolia, Iraq and Iran, starting before 10,000 BC. What we have in Iberia and Britanny is connected with those beginnings, and represents the first Neolithics in those areas. But we have to word it carefully, as, for example, the Breton Neolithic is not even the first agriculture in modern France (that already happens during the Linear Pottery period, but further east). So, in a way, the Neolithic arrives, rather than emerges. What does emerge is the Atlantic Neolithic, and, in a way, the megalith-building tradition, much as many see that as a more diverse phenomenon. Next question, what should we do about the (disputed) early dates from carrowmore, placing it in the 6th millennium, andf the non-disputed ones from Bougon, which are older than any of the non-disputed ones in Brittany (before 4,800)? athinaios 08:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Stonehenge was constructed by indigenous peoples in 3200BCE how do you explain preparations 5 milion years after? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.147.70 (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I must admit I have no idea what that question means, Unsigned one. What are those 5 million years you are talking about? After what? And preparations for what? The first phase of Stonehenge dates to about 3,100 BC alright, but that's when it's "just" a bank and ditch. Stonehenge as we know it, with sarsens and bluestones and all that, came into existence as the product of a long development, around 2,500 or so BC. Indigenous peoples? Yes, probably, although it is not even clear that the people who lived in Wessex in 3,200 BC are entirely the same as in, say, 2,500 BC. Why would they? Have a look at this. athinaios 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I now understand what you meant, unsigned one. Not really part of this discussion thread but never mind. Is it possible that you confused 5,000 years with 5 million years? Maybe you should read the Stonehenge article before editing here. There is indeed activity there, even some kind of wooden architecture, in circa 8,000 BC, as TharkunColl rightly points out, albeit hardly megalithic. One may doubt whether it's really connected with the later monument in any way, but it's there and it's relevant. athinaios 06:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I see. I am sure that you will discover were the construction megaliths plans were If you see the Grutas do Escoural [1] paintings 13000BCE near The Almendres stones circules, probably the first megalithic construction in the world if not Nabta Playa and men dont discover another more ancient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conistorgis (talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I see, too. But no. The Escoural paintings are paintings, and the Escoural megaliths are megaliths,+. It is not clear how they are connected. If they are, it's most fascinating. As would be a link between 8,000 BC Stonehenge and 3,200 BC Stonhenge. But it is not in itself extraordinary that the same location would be interesting to humans at different times. athinaios 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
They are the same. Genetics dont ly, Halougroup R1b [2] see distribution. But, Ok, if you only see paintings than you dont have been at Escoural Caves, I mean shcemes or symbols not yet explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conistorgis (talk • contribs) 22:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
No, genetics don't lie. But their interpratation is ambiguous, and so far none of the suggestions linking particular haplogroups with archaeological "cultures" have found general scholarly acceptance. I have not been to Escoural, no, but I know of that fascinating place. I still don't think that there must necessarily be a connecetion between a Palaeolithic painted cave and a nearby Neolithic megalithic monument. athinaios 16:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Conistorgis. With regard to the article you wrote on Barnenez:
  • "The Prehistoric Cairn Barnenez lies in the Brittany community Plouezoc'h, on the peninsula in Kernéléhen North Finistère France. Barnenez arose around 4500 BC, and is thus one of the oldest Megalith plants in the world; About 2,000 years older than the Egyptian pyramids. At the time of his edification of the surveyed Cairn still a fertile lowlands, today's Bay of Morlaix. He has enormous dimensions. The 13,000 to 14,000 tons weighing structure is 72 m long, up to 25 feet wide and 8 feet high."
Can you please translate it into English? Thanks. TharkunColl 23:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
English is a very good thing that I am learnig. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conistorgis (talk • contribs) 00:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Conistorgis, thanks for starting the Barnenez article. That was long overdue. I've extended it, using what I could find on other wikipedias (being in Greece, I have no access to my notes and books at this time). There's quite a few important megalithic monuments (like Table de Marchands and other Locmariaquer monuments, Cairnholy, most Irish court tombs, Péré, Ober- and Niederzeuzheim, all kinds of things in Portugal and so on) that still lack English wikipedia articles. I wonder should we make a list and try and deal with them.athinaios 22:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Eastern Anatolia

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)

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)

[edit] Method of construction

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)

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)

There's a lot known about the physical characteristics of megalithic monuments, but less is clear about the construction methods. Without invoking extraterrestrials and the hand of Dog, for mechanistic solutions there's a modicum of experimental evidence that the job can be done given a good number of beefy men, a lot of ropes, rollers, levers, and sometimes a significant investment in earthworks. I arrived here looking for backup to comments about siting megaliths in sockets dug into the bedrock. Not a lot of confirmation - it's the sort of thing that's described in excavation reports, but doesn't get too much further debate. Aidan Karley (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BC versus BCE

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)

[edit] Map showing 'Development of the European Megalithic Culture'

There is an unsourced map which says it shows the spread of 'the European megalithic culture', a concept that is not accepted by archaeologists. I've removed it twice explaining the problem (the only place the article mentions megalithic culture is to say that the concept is rejected), but TharkunColl keeps putting it back. I don't want to get blocked, and am not going to be around, but can someone else please see what they can do? I've explained to him that a map showing locations of megalithic architecture would be fine, but he obviously doesn't care if the map is accurate or that it argues for a rejected concept.Doug Weller (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The map is derived from the Times Atlas of World History. It is a very useful addition to the article. And if people have removed "culture" from the article they should put it back, because to say it isn't a culture is not only POV but also ridiculous. TharkunColl (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
In other words, it's ripped off from a copyrighted source. And look at the timeline - Neolithic to Bronze Age. There is no such thing as a megalithic culture, there are cultures who built megaliths but they were different cultures at different times in different places, not one culture as implied by the phrase 'megalithic culture' (or worse, 'megalithic civilization' as is claimed by fringe writers). And it still isn't referenced.Doug Weller (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not "ripped off". I used a free image of the European coastline and created the map myself. The problem here, I suspect, is that the word "culture" has a wider meaning in normal English usage than how archaeologists use it. Since we're not writing a paper for an archaeological journal, the use here is legitimate. I've added the reference now. TharkunColl (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that the use of the term 'culture' here is legitimate, we owe readers a bit more than that. I am still confused. You took a free image (the source?) and then what? Using information from a medievalist and specialist in German history who died in 1984. What makes that a good source for even the spread of megalithic structures?Doug Weller (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
He was the editor of the Times Atlas but each section was written by specialists. Onto the bare European coastline I placed the information as shown (the original was far more detailed, however). But it was not traced and is therefore not a rip off (the maps, for example, had a different projection). TharkunColl (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
So who wrote this and when? And where do these 'far west' etc. terms come from? I can't find them anywhere, they aren't, as the map implies, standard terms.Doug Weller (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The map contradicts the text. It is out of date (the guy died in 1984) and archaeologists don't talk about a European megalithic culture anymore. I can see no rationale for having an out of date map citing an out of date concept (and groupings that don't match any archaeological article or book I can find). Megaliths were built over thousands of years by many different cultures. If you want to argue for a culture, please do so with some references, not by imposing a map on the article.Doug Weller (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

They were there in the atlas. TharkunColl (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
And the Atlas was published in 1978, so the information is now about 30 years out of date. Do a Google or Google scholar search on those terms and you will see why I am unhappy with them. There are also references in the article showing that the idea of a European megalithic culture is out of date. I know we aren't writing for archaeologists, but we still shouldn't use terms like that. You don't have cultures that last 6000+ years and cover almost a continent. And I doubt that you want to be confused with people who argue for a 'megalithic civilization' which measured the speed of light, etc. I appreciate all the hard work you put into this, but can't we work together? For instance, I may be able to find sources you can't, eg I subscribe to Antiquity Magazine and have access to its archives.Doug Weller (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
How about if I just changed the title of the map? TharkunColl (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) Last comment tonight. If there is such a thing as a megalithic culture, and since I know NOTHING about the subject I cannot comment, should the map not show megalithic culture in Africa, Asia, India, etc.? Even I can find that there were megaliths all over the world at all sorts of different times. Seems unlikely they were all the same culture. Even looking at the map in this article, it covers a period of 3600 years which, if I'm not mistaken, is longer than Egyptian culture survived. Now, a "megalithic culture" that survived that long would be truly notable and would surely be well documented in recent references. Night all. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Megaliths in other areas of the world are independent developments. The European culture is connected by geography and trade routes, and is distributed along the coasts and major rivers. The map is placed in the section dealing with European megaliths for good reason, because that is its subject matter. Please feel free to create one for the east Asian megalithic culture, etc. Oh, nice logic by the way. Despite the existence of all those megalithic constructions spanning so many millennia, it can't be a culture because it rivals Egypt in length. And yes, you're right. It is truly notable, and is referenced extensively. For some reason, however, these references are somehow unreliable because they do not conform to some latest transient theory or other. TharkunColl (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Rudeness isn't going to help. Or dismissing decades of modern archaeology. They are unreliable just as references to phlogiston are unreliable. Yes, for thousands of years people built big things with big rocks for various ritual purposes. We can see distinct differences in these monuments over time and different regions of Europe, let alone different styles of pottery, burial practices, etc. Egyptian civilization (cities, writing, etc) is an entirely different story. Are you saying then you don't care about what anyone else thinks, about current archaeological thought, you aren't interested and nothing can change your mind? Because if so, it would be useful to know now.Doug Weller (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It is only one strand of archaeological thought you're referring to. Pottery, archictecture and burial practices changed in Egypt too by the way, both regionally and over time. The trouble is, some archaeologists appear to think that pottery is a culture. But this article is not about pottery, it's about megaliths. TharkunColl (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Please provide me with relevant recent references to a European megalithic culture. So far it looks as though you have none and are just pushing your personal opinion. I'll ask again -- will anything change your mind? Because if it won't, there is no point in discussing this here anymore.Doug Weller (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Will anything change yours? I have given references. But you have set some sort of arbitrary time limit. Fortunately, however, it is not up to you to decide which references are acceptable and which aren't, because that would be OR. TharkunColl (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Besides Barraclough, what references have you provided? Because references are supposed to be not just relevant and verifiable but recent. It's not a case of an arbitrary time limit, we should have current thinking represented on Wikipedia, not just out of date ideas. The article has to conform to current thinking. You are appeaer to be trying to impose an obsolete concept on the article through an image.Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It's only you who seems to think it's obsolete. We should represent all opinions here, not just one. And in any case, I told you Barraclough was just the editor. Each section was prepared by specialists in that field. Originally published in 1978, the Times Atlas was reissued in 2001. TharkunColl (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
We already have a reference to early 20th century ideas of a 'megalithic culture'. I don't know any modern archaeologists who think there was a European megalithic culture (we can also discuss the use of the word 'culture' by modern archaeologists at another time) Can I please check, are you now saying that your information comes from the 2001 edition? Who wrote the section? And why does the reference mention Barraclough who couldn't have edited the 2001 edition? What change would you be willing to make in the title?Doug Weller (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I see no further point in continuing this debate. No matter what references are given you continually change the goalposts to exclude anything that disagrees with your POV. TharkunColl (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)That isn't true. I keep asking for references and you don't provide them. As you added the reference to Barraclough, it appears to me that the mention of a 2001 edition (long after he died) is a red herring. I'm not able to do it for a few days, but when I get home I have access to my books on prehistoric European archaeology and megaliths plus archaeology journals, so I can spell out the current situation better in the article. And as you don't seem able to show that your image is either accurate or reflects current thinking, I may remove it sooner.Doug Weller (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it now, as I just read this in the article: "Excavation of some Megalithic monuments (in Britain, Ireland, Scandinavia and France) has revealed evidence of ritual activity, sometimes involving architecture, from the Mesolithic, ie predating the Neolithic monuments by centuries or millennia. Caveats apply: in some cases, they are chronologically so far removed from their successors that continuity is unlikely, in other cases the early dates, or the exact character of activity, are controversial." I appreciate TharkunColl's hard work on this article but anything can be improved, and I have the access to the resources required.Doug Weller (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Since TharkunColl volunteered to change the word "culture" in the title of the map, I went ahead and did that, and accordingly restored the wording of the article. I also removed the regional names since they aren't established usage and not needed for the article. A map is always a good idea; if it is inaccurate, we can mention the problems in the caption until we are able to create a more accurate map. And yes, a map of world-wide distribution would be interesting too, if s.o. feels up to it. kwami (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Doug and Kwami, if the Times Atlas of World History really does say there was some monolithic (pardon the pun) "Megalith culture" across Europe, then it was hopelessly out-of-date, even for 1978. Consulting another of those publishing-house popular atlases of general history (this one the New Penguin Atlas of Ancient History by Colin McEvedy, 1st published 1967, 2nd ed reprint 2002), one finds:

"One people who do not appear on the map are the megalith-builders, who once occupied a great deal of space in archaeological texts. In the original version of the story the megalith-builders were Egyptians who sailed westward and taught the neolithic people of Atlantic Europe how to use [megaliths] to construct communal tombs. The tombs certainly exist but they are much older than any equivalent Egyptian building...It seems that a fashion for communal burial tombs spread through the coastal peoples of western Europe...[but] there is no ethnic pattern to it, and though it could represent a system of beliefs...we have no way of recovering this. None of which has stopped enthusiasts sailing soggy papyrus boats into the Atlantic." (p.26)

One could note McEvedy was not a specialist in this area; however, turning to a more recent atlas contributed to by practising archaeologists (The Atlas of World Archaeology, Paul Bahn ed., 2007), the caption to a nifty map showing megalithic sites dotted over Europe reads:

"From the 5th to the 3rd millennium BCE, many prehistoric societies across Europe expressed their beliefs throught the construction of massive stone monuments...archaeological investigation has shown that many of the monuments in their present form are the result of long and often complex developmental histories." (p.65, emphasis added)

Again, no single "megalithic culture" here. I don't think it would be too difficult to track down scads of papers by contemporary neolithic researchers expressing the same sentiments. What's lacking are any discrete and independent references —other than what the Times Atlas is supposed to portray— which would support a view that it is not current consensus that no such single megalithic culture in europe existed. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Single culture, group of related cultures - it is a question of semantics. To state, categorically, that the megalithic phenomenon was not a culture is to mislead our readers, who might assume we were using culture in its normal English meaning rather than its strict archaeological sense. TharkunColl (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Afraid I quite disagree, this is not merely a matter of semantics — there's a whole world of difference between positing these monuments were the product of some identifiable and unified culture, and noting (correctly) that they were built at different times, by different peoples, for different purposes. I'm unclear as to what exactly you mean by "culture" in this context, if not an archaeological / anthropological one? --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Different times - that's the thing about cultures, they exist through time. Different peoples - we have no idea of the ethnicity or language of the people who built them. Different purposes - we don't know the exact purpose either. TharkunColl (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Tharkun, this is an encyclopedia, not a comic book. We need to use words precisely. Since you're the one making the claim, you need to support your argument with a reputable source, and you've failed to do so. There are three of us here who disagree with you; I'm not an archaeologist, but it's obvious even to me that the claims of a single megalithic culture are unsupported. kwami (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, however, for removing Barry Fell! kwami (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We do of course know that there are great architectural/stylistic etc differences between different ones in different areas, different uses (thinking here of the bones associated with them), etc. I will note that the Times Archaeology of the World, 1991, that I have makes no such claim when looking at European megaliths (although I'll also note I would never use it as a reference, such books are simply not suitable as references in a case like this. What we seem to have here is an editor with extreme ownership problems who won't listen to anyone else. I've got another nice reference to add in a moment.Doug Weller (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we have enough. It's now up to TC to find supporting refs. kwami (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
For what? The map doesn't even say culture any more. TharkunColl (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] big stone culture

while the just above paragraph twaddles about on and on ,,, it seems necessary to point out that most are not educated enough to have any discussion, this includes about all archeologists, etc as most of them are unawares of the heavy GLOBAL trade that existed from earliest times and so that heavy global trade DID INCLUDE the spread of the ideas about monoliths and their reason for being built , as local computers for astrological and astronomy events as eclipses... e.,g. there was Sumerian writing found in Peru dated to 2,000 BC and there are 15,000 copper mining pits in the Michigan peninsula dated to the same period... see "America BC" by Harv Prof Barry Fell, etc Prof Fell goes over the heavy writings proving this early global trade all over the America's in early Ogam, Basaque, Lybian, Phoenician, Egyptian, earlyl Norse etc etc - /s CINCU Sr Willy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.178.52 (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We are supposed to believe a marine biologist and ignore all the archaeologists? And that Native Americans couldn't mine copper? Won't happen.Doug Weller (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
more twaddle ?,

barry was a geologist who brought in language experts to decode the diff languages... no one said natives mined the copy what was mentioned was boatloads of Europeans and Mid Easterners visiting over 4,000+ years...they mnined it - twaddle dee twaddle dumb.

in another vein, megalith mega philes should try "Stonehenge Decoded" by Gerald Hawkins proving Stonehenge's use as a computer, etc and eclipse predictor .... and its bldg over 400 yrs proving early writing to transmit the info among the ? blders, druids, elite...

also the symbols used across Europe from ME to India are all the same rite to elevate man whether pict "z / v bar" detailing or Hindu boar... and /or the transmission / language / writing is ? the same sky-mind record (Akashic Record) of the godwolf/gotwulf there for all to use /s/ kahoonie willy sr 99.162.178.52 (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.178.52 (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, you really should do your research. Barry Fell was a marine biologist at Harvard University, he didn't bring in experts to decode languages, the experts on Michigan copper mining all agree it was done by Native Americans, and your insults can get you into trouble. This isn't an article on individual megaliths, but I can assure you that Stonehenge took much more than 400 years to build and that Gerald Hawkins (who proved nothing) didn't think there was writing on it.Doug Weller (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
note, the just above commenter, young Douglas, does note that there is a wiki on Dr Fell at

Barry Fell which while heavily biased, does include a couple of accurate remarks about Fell's wide ranging excellent work (though immediately, manically trashed in that wiki) if anyone at all reads Dr Fell's books, he sees immediately, he constantly uses outside experts in varying languages as Libyan, Basque, old Norse to read writings, in spite of Douglas's denying diarhea; and the same with Hawkins, if unable to think, such outstanding work passes one by, ...

see also, the Akashic Record for recordings of historical use of any such megalith sites and also below "readings" paragraph ... lil chakraverti, jr -kk , 99.162.178.52 (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To set the record straight, Fell did most of his own interpretations if not all of the alleged inscriptions he found. Yes, other people got involved -- and frequently although they acknowledged Fell's work in identifying the incscriptions they disagreed with his interpretations (although still alleging Old World contact) and at times criticised the drawings he made of inscriptions. I've got America BC right beside me, perhaps you can give me the page numbers where he calls in an outside expert to decipher something for him.
I don't know why editors on this page who are Fell fans insist on insulting other editors, but I suggest they read WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civil as I am getting tired of it. Doug Weller (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'll give my two pence to this spin back and fro, If you want to meet the ancestral mind,look at the symbol of the masons...and think of builders and sailors and astronomers.How old is the quadrant?and the Pythagoras riddle? Further into....what geometric shape the symbol reminds you in the hand of the goddess hidden? Lo,you don't want to believe in old brotherhoods of wisdoms --147.144.66.185 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Cristoforo de Troy.

Ok, thanks, that clears it all up pretty well. ClovisPt (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thanks cristo, goddess has in hand flail and shield, but drillin down thru levels upon levels, didja

note skull AO and longarm? Proto, Gm-Ps nautoniere plantardo, the reel ard; PhD archeo-astronomo-cosmology 99.165.196.225 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] readings first

before excavations begin on any of these ancient structures, there should be complete photographs made and esp also if possible, a reading by an "expert" as these sites contain usually "imprints" of the results of the rites practiced there and those "imprints" can explain the site entirely .User talk:99.162.178.52 /s/ chas bronson V 04:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What is a reading by an expert? A medium of some sort?Doug Weller (talk) 08:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I should add that you might need to read WP:Talk Page - this sort of discussion doesn't really belong here.Doug Weller (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
decoding exactly what such a site was, is surely part of the article, and the rites at many sites

generated plank level, energy flashes which "imprints" the entire surrounding matter and so does leave a video/ pic of that flash and its doings - "site reader", extraordinaire - Willy the "Mo", mity kahuna, real doode, 99.162.178.52 (talk)`~

Ah, well there we have a problem. Not only have I not the foggiest idea what you are talking about, it's irrelevant here anyway, as we aren't doing any research on megaliths in an encyclopedia.Doug Weller (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This is actually a very good point. What counts as authoritative? Dowsers and related investigators have been making their own evaluations of stone circles for decades, published in their own journals. Why are their claims any less worthy of mention? TharkunColl (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I gather you aren't familiar with Wikipedia's core policies. Read WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY. Sentences like "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." are one reason.--Doug Weller (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Such as the Ley Hunter magazine, or Fortean Times. Highly reputable publications in their own field with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Well I'm glad we agree then. TharkunColl (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)