Talk:Aboriginal stone arrangement

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Indigenous peoples Low‑importance

	Australia portal Aboriginal stone arrangement is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Murujuga

... has been cited as the largest 'standing stone' arrangement in the world. This would seem to contradict the Victorian claim. Any one? - Fred

Good point Fred. I suspect that Wurdi Youang is still larger than any of the individual stone arrangements at Murujuga, but I'm ready to be corrected if anyone knows better. In the meantime, I'll put in a ref to the Muruga standing stones too. Rayd8 | User talk:Rayd8 20:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was sloppy. The claim I read was largest number. I will find some sources and help flesh out this page. I am a bit dubious of the comparison to megalithic european stones. I am certain that the general colonial mind set would have led to the destuction of many. If this stuff were in europe it would be taught in schools worldwide. So it goes. - Fred 01:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again, I didn't realise this page was brand new. I just found the link when I was at the art page. Nice work Rayd8! - Fred 01:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fred. The comparison is in appearance - Wurdi Youang would be almost indistinguishable from a Bronze-Age stone circle if it was in England! I didn't mean to imply any similarity in purpose or culture. I'll clarify that. You're dead right that this stuff would be taught in schools in Europe - I'm amazed how many Sydneysiders are totally unaware of the fantastic rock art in the neighbourhood. Many one day it will be taught in schools here! Actually, come to think of it, a few enlightened schools do - see [1] Rayd8 | User talk:Rayd8 00:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Circles

Those stone circles look very Celtic to me. The area is very Celtic.

'Murujuga' is ghost dog the same as 'mirriyolla' in the Gundagai area is ghost dog. Somewhere, (forget where) 'Jugiong' is recorded as meaning ghost dog and that fits in with all else. It would be no suprise if ghost dog travelled to the Burrup Peninsula at all the same as Gundagai lads helped take stock over there and Goulburn cattle duffers took heaps of stock across and even bunji is recorded for that general area via Cyril Longmore and Liveringa. Good to have a look at an online site called 'Wiradjuri Windows'. Its a Coota Council site about ghost dog. I think yolla may have evolved from bool(a) as in -----dool. It may not have though. It may just be a different tense or something. There is also a fair chance that bool = dool or 2. Two dogs as in mutt mutt or two mutt or bong bong or twobong or even little river country Tumut/doomutt. Two dogs. Look like celtic circles and its good to have a Wilpeena Pound poster on the wall and see the look on the face of a very learned Aboriginal person when they saw it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.225.116 (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Why Celtic?Stonehenge and its like pre-date the arrival of the Celts by several centuries .Perhaps you mean Iberian,or Basque?AptitudeDesign (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

"(although the function and culture are presumably completely different)" this is a presumptuous statement. Just because you don't know why cultures on opposite sides of the world were doing the same kind of astronomy, does not impugn different reasons. After all, do we know anything about their reasons other than our own? Pseudo-scientific artiness!AptitudeDesign (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aboriginal stone arrangement/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Stub quality I can accept, but low importance? This strikes me as a value judgement which reflects an individuals lack of interest in this subject, which many would find very important if you wish to understand Indigenous culture. Or is there some sort of objective mway of making this assessment?RayNorris 02:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 18:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)