Jump to content

Talk:Tumulus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Site: Germany

[edit]

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)[reply]


[edit]

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)[reply]

List of Judean Kings Who Ruled From Jerusalem Who May Have Been Honored With Tumuli

[edit]

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:

  1. David
  2. Solomon
  3. Rehoboam
  4. Abijam-Abijah
  5. Asa
  6. Jehoshaphat
  7. Jehoram (not honored at his death; see article)
  8. Ahaziah (skip his mommy, Athaliah; see article)
  9. Joash
  10. Amaziah
  11. Azariah-Uzziah
  12. Jotham
  13. Ahaz
  14. Hezekiah
  15. Manasseh
  16. Amon
  17. Josiah
  18. Shallum-Jehoahaz
  19. Eliakim-Jehoiakim
  20. Coniah-Jehoiachin
  21. 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)[reply]

I added parenthetical remarks by Jehoram (#7) & Zedekiah (#21) since the Biblical record suggests these 2 kings did not receive a tumulus ceremony; it's just a coincidence that there were 19 Judean kings who ruled in Jerusalem, & 19 tumuli near Jerusalem.--Funhistory 04:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Korean Tumulus

[edit]

Korea holds much of East Asian Tumulus and special attention is needed. --Korsentry 01:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Common FP of tumulus in Denmark available

[edit]

Hi,

One of 22,000 conserved tumuli in Denmark. Featured picture at Commons.

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)[reply]

Tumuli in Poland

[edit]

How about Krakus Mound and some others listed in pl:Kurhan? 149.156.201.210 (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tumulus and Kurgan

[edit]

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)[reply]

I would have to disagree with a merge.Tumulus is as I understand it, a general term for burial mounds everywhere while Kurgan is a cultural term refering to the people of Haplogroup R1 who were the earliest users of this type if inhumation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.20.194 (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Engvar

[edit]

User Joyalazzo has taken it upon his/her self to Americanize the English here, and add a tag saying the article uses US English. In fact the early versions were in British English, and indeed only covered English tumuli. No American spelling was introduced until this diff , adding to a reasonably long article. As far as I can see the version of English used has never been discussed, & should remain British English according to WP:ENGVAR. I have reverted to the previous rather mixed state. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not Americanize the English but restored it to what is was before it was British-ized recently [1]. I'm fine with this going either way but we should not be thrashing the text about like this without a discussion. I cannot see that the original author (here) used any identifiable variations, so that fallback is unavailable. The first English variation that I was able to locate was here where the American form of "meter" was used. As JB notes, the American, "popularized", was later used here but I am not clear what British variations preceded that. Jojalozzo 00:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing American about popularized - see Oxford spelling. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then please clarify what American spelling was introduced at "this diff". Also, please provide evidence of British English before the introduction of "meter". Jojalozzo 22:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has gone silent. Perhaps a mistake was made and we can restore my changes. Jojalozzo 21:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an "honor" in that diff (about Israel). I can't detect any notably specific BE usages before that, but as the article originally had an edit summary (1st edit) saying it only covered English tumuli, I think it can be deemed to have been in BE. If it somehow wasn't, it should have been, per ENGVAR. It was quite large before any AE variants came in (that either of us can detect). Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary admits the article stub is limited to the UK but emphasizes it should encompass at least Europe and America and the stub text, which is what really matters for ENGVAR, establishes the subject as "found throughout much of the world" and contains no signs of a particular English variety. According to MOS:RETAIN, "If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety." As we both found so far, the first variety introduced is American. Jojalozzo 03:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it is clear that the early versions, still restricted to English examples, were consistently written in a particular English variety. The first edit included "Tumuli are also known as barrows or burial mounds and may be found throughout much of the world. A tumulus composed largely or entirely of stones is usually referred to as a cairn", with distinctively British vocabulary, and for a long time the only category was "British archaeology". I now see the first US spelling was indeed "meters" in the Japanese section, when the article was well beyond a stub. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot tell if that's distinctly British vocabulary or not. Even if it was, there is nothing about vocabulary in the Engvar policy. It appears to me that the policy is written to make these disputes relatively easy to resolve so I doubt that an analysis of vocabulary is pertinent.
Unless you want to change the policy, I propose we go with American, since we appear to have consensus (of two!) that the first introduction of English variety was American. Jojalozzo 21:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have any concensus with me, & I dispute the conclusion as above. America does not have "barrows" etc. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am overstepping here but it seems to me that since British English and American English have diverged as much as they have, maybe Wikipedia might consider separating the two and have articles written in each rather than have editors fighting over which version of English is the most appropriate for a given article. At the top of the page we can have two buttons, one with a Union Jack and the other with a U.S. flag and the larger one indicates the version used in the current article. Then if you are British and you stumble upon an article written in American English and that puts you off you would merely need to click on the Union Jack at the top of the page and presto! You are taken instantly to a page where you encounter English as you feel it should be spoken, and read and everybody is happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.191.251.196 (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At what stage does a dialect of English qualify as suitably divergent? Will we have articles in Australian, Jamaican, South African and Tristan Da Cunhaian English? It seems the original article (though originally only about British examples) was written in such a way that no words or spellings peculiar to the British or US forms of English were present, which would suggest divergence is actually slight. I think in this case those of us who habitually use British English have to accept that this article was first differentiated with US spellings and just put up with it. It's not that big a deal. Markaeologist (talk) 10:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

India and Pakistan on the Aegean?

[edit]

The section including India and Pakistan is labelled 'Aegean and Near East'. Under no-one's definition are India and Pakistan 'the Near East'. They aren't even 'the Middle East'. I suggest grouping India and Pakistan as 'South Asia' in the same way as China, Korea and Japan are 'East Asia', and including Greece, Turkey and the Levant as 'Eastern Mediterranean'. Markaeologist (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greece is listed in 'Eastern Europe' and with India in Near East and Aegean'. If no-one else wants to take this up I will edit these sections to 1-split the info contained in 'Near East and Aegean' into a 'South Asia' location heading and an 'Eastern Mediterranean' heading; 2-move all the 'Greece' stuff into the new 'Eastern Mediterranean' heading; 3-move India & Pakistan into the 'South Asia' heading. Now is definitely the time to post objections, counter-proposals or better ways of organising this.
Markaeologist (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, more than 3 years after flagging this, with no objections, I've changed this. Markaeologist (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roman barrows in Britain?

[edit]

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 http://en.wiki.x.io/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 http://en.wiki.x.io/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)[reply]

Proposal to tidy up British section

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tumulus&oldid=1206289216"