Talk:European Megalithic Culture

Why is this title capitalized? --Wetman 00:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have more often seen it capitalised as a proper name than otherwise. TharkunColl 08:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates on Map

The dates on the map show two groups, 4,800 to 3,000 and 3,000 to 1,200. What this suggests is that the first group (4,800 to 3,000) are not operating in that area after 3,000. I think that the key to the map should be altered to indicate that 4,800-3,000 and 3,000-1,200 are the dates during which European Megalithic Culture first appear in those areas.

some editing

I was so bold as to implement a fairly substantial edit, obviously hoping for ot to be accepted, altered or discussed.

Changed some of the overly assertive expressions (archaeologists don't tend to use "beyond doubt" very happily, because to a scientist, nothing should be so).
Clarified the prevailing consensus of the megalithic phenomenon not being as unified as once thought, and not being identical with the Neolithic.
Added some countries to the distribution list.
Added passage graves and gallery graves to the list of monument types.
Created a new section called "linguistic speculation" to separate those issues from the more descriptive bits.
Added some links (there is a rather confusing variety of overlapping articles about this and related topics on wiki. I sometimes wonder should we merge some of them. Perhaps we should also explicitly link to the known cultures that constitute the European megalithic phenomenon, as far as they are presented on wikipedia.

athinaios 11:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

The problem with this article is that it is mainly uncited opinion and speculation; the new paragraph in the lead explaining that megalithic does not equal neolithic is a fresh example. The article seems to conclude that there was no such thing as megalithic culture per se and that megaliths were construsted by peoples of various (but interlinked by trade and population movement) cultures, mainly in the neolithic era but not exclusively so. Under these circumstances should we not cut out the speculation and opinion and merge what is left with the article megalith? Abtract 12:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure would that be the solution. Although scholarly consensus today certainly points towards variety and parallel independent developments with some degree of connection (etc etc), the point is that for a long time the notion of a unified megalithic culture did exist, and that the idea still has a considerable influence, especially on the popular imagination. In other words, someone who looks for the topic should find something.

Maybe this article should be more explanatory of the history of research and the concept (referring to VG Childe, Atlantis, etc etc). In that case, muchz of its content could indeed be merged into Megalith (that article is very very general right now).

I felt the "Neolithic does not equal Megalithic" section necessary, as the two are often confused and were so in this very article. Uncited it is, but speculation or opinion it certainly isn't. How should I go about it? By citing some Irish/British non-megalithic acticvity, and some megalithic non-Neolithic acticity, and some European pre-megalithic Neolithic (eg LBK)? athinaios 13:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I read the article the more convinced I am that it says nothing that couldnt be better in the megalith article or abandoned all together. Take it section at a time:

The lead is built around the (excellent and informative) map that actually shows the location of megaliths (merge) and the new section saying that meg does not = neo but that is already contained in the megalith article using different words. Better not to use the speculation style but stick to "facts" like dates for structures and dates for neolithic not matching ... we must be careful not to stray into OR.

Then there are two sections types of megaliths and other structures which would be much better merged bcause they are about structures not culture.

The section distribution and development is completely uncited and could much better be in the megalith article because it is actually about megaliths and how the building methods spread.

That leaves only the sections on linguistic speculation (a good name by the way) which is uncited speculation and modern myths which is a bit of frippery and could go anywhere. Abtract 15:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I think I mostly agree. I personally wouldn't mind seeing the linguistics stuff disappear entirely, at least as long as there are no citations (pot kettle black, I know). Is the other article, er, lively? athinaios 15:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to merge but feel Abtract is too negative about the current effort; the map and "timeline" sections are very readable and interesting, assuming they are reliable. (Sarah777 19:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I see both Thark and Abstract here, small Wikiworld. I'd have thought you guys would be more focused on the Neanderthal talk page! (Sarah777 19:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]