Talk:Menhir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Asking questions?[edit]

Were they initially inspired by the mysterious presence of glacial erratics? This has been cut. Is this not a relevant question, for which there is no current answer? Must questions be turned into statements, by the addition of "...is a question asked by some."? Wetman 00:08, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe they were? Who thinks so? Why? If you know, please put it in the article. An encyclopedia article is not the place to ask questions, it's the place to answer them. Markalexander100 06:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Of course there is reason to ask whether glacial erratics weren't suggestive to the culture that erected menhirs. An encyclopedia, unlike a catechism, is an excellent place to ask questions.Wetman 10:38, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, exactly the opposite. A catechism is composed of questions and answers; an encyclopedia provides information. Asking questions does not provide information. Saying that somebody has asked a question does provide information. Markalexander100 00:38, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A catechism provides the canonical answers. It does not permit unauthorized questions. Like a child's first encyclopedia. Wetman 00:42, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--Interested persons may want to take a look at the menhirs in North Africa and ancient Iberia which --from what I've read-- have much in common and are dated and structured similarly.

For what it is worth (likely not much), the Finnish word used both for menhirs and for glacial erratics is identical: "hiidenkivi". -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

translation for menhir[edit]

i think that the source for the translation is false men is stone, but hir is for standing/raised representing the position of the stone and not its length — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.226.11.86 (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"menhir row" vs "stone row"[edit]

Hello, in french we say "menhir alignments", but in english, how do you say ? I'm asking because there is a small talk about it on Commons. So if you are aware of something, help us please !-) YolanCh 18:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"Menhirs in modern culture", anyone?[edit]

Or would that just be a bullet on Obelix?

Sounds good to me.  :-) Mdotley 15:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

actually I believe the recent Pokémon games (ones set in "Kalos" i.e. France) have several of these and they're part of the plot as well, so there's that. --CatCat (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Organization[edit]

I just added in some headings, moved one sentence, and broke a paragraph into two, (since it addressed two different ideas). I didn't quite call it a minor edit, but since I didn't change the content, maybe I should have. Mdotley 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

European origin[edit]

What about menhirs / isolated standing stones from other parts of the world? There are some in Sabah, on the island of Borneo. I have a photo of my grandparents standing by one; here's an article that mentions them http://www.badanwarisan.org.my/content/?cid=117 (scroll to the bottom; sorry can't do the computer magic linky thing). I'm sure there must be standing stones from elsewhere in the world too, and there doesn't seem to be a section in megaliths that would accommodate them. I'm new to Wikipedia and don't feel qualified to write about this - any takers? Monique34 00:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My theory[edit]

My theory? Someone thought it would be fun to erect some big rock that they found lying on the ground. I know, I know, no original research... :) Stale Fries taste better 07:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've often thought about that two; pranksters. I doubt that they had the free time in the bronze age for that kind of thing though. Ceoil (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aw, jeez, thanks a lot. Now all I can think of is a couple of Neolithic Beavis and Butthead types "erecting" one of these things...uh-huh-huh-huh-huh... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge Discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I support the proposal to merge the two articles as the Menhir (Iron Age) article starts in the middle of nowhere anyway and looks like part of a larger article. Also I would suggest that the "partial list of menhirs" is removed from the Menhir article as there is already a List of menhirs which is incomplete and needs to be expanded. There should instead be a pointer to that list in the merged articles. Richerman (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Merge. /Jiiimbooh (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was merge into Menhir

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Historicality of Asterix[edit]

Might be worthwhile, since many readers will only know of menhirs from Asterix, to include a short para explaining the (lack of) historicity involved. E.g., they probably weren't made by one person, certainly not carried by one person, not sold as commodities, not garden decorations, not weapons, not specifically French. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.176.13 (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

partial list[edit]

I've removed the partial list of menhirs as there is a List of menhirs that isn't complete anyway, so the partial list was pointless. Also people kept adding menhirs to the partial list and not the other list. Richerman (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erich von Daniken's Hypothesis[edit]

In the book "Signs Of The Gods?" , von Daniken says that the menhirs contained quartz. He hypothesises that they were used as radio antennae, since quartz generates electrical current as a reaction to waves(my semi-acoustic guitar uses the same tech-the vibrations of the body make the quartz in the piezo-electric pickup generate electricity, which is sent to the amplifier, resulting in sound). He said that the underground "grooves" in the menhirs showed traces of metals. He said that the menhirs were used as radio antennae, using wires underground which have since been corroded away across millenia. He also claimed that it could have never been used as a calendar, since men in those days were not so stupid so as not to notice that all seasons followed one another. Anyone got any info on this? This is just one of the oddities he mentioned in his books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.195.147 (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Von daniken has made a lot of money out of peddling pseudoscience and his books are full, of half truths and rubbish. I remember when Chariots of the Gods? first became popular in the 70's a TV programme was made that debunked a lot of his claims. For instance, he claimed that he'd found stones carved thousands of years ago with scenes depicting a heart transplant. The programme makers actually found the guy that was engraving the stones for the tourist market and he said he'd copied the pictures from medical journals. There was also a photo of an "alien landing strip with a turning bay" on the Nazca plain which was shown to be a close up of the knee of a stylised bird. If you want to find some more debunking of the rubbish he peddles try here and here. I'm pretty sure that when he makes these claims about underground grooves and cables he hasn't done any excavations to investigate. Even if the cables had corroded away there would still be evidence of them left in the soil. Richerman (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Folk Tale[edit]

I'm from Brittany. Menhirs and dolmens, I've seen quite a few! In many places, people believe the megaliths have supernatural powers. One widespread belief deals with fertility. Rituals such as crawling under a dolmen, or "hugging" a menhir are quite common for couples who want a child. It is supposed to bring fertility to women. I know quite a few very "rational" people who have practiced these rituals themselves. Somehow, this belief persists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.92.4 (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Korean Menhir[edit]

Korea have the most number of menhir in the world, please add their information and updated the Menhir article.123.243.51.103 (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is the encylopedia anyone can edit. If you can find some information on Korean menhirs that is verifiable, either in books or on the web, please fell free to add it. If you don't feel able to do it yourself put some web links on this discussion page and maybe someone else will add them. Richerman (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disputation of heaviest object moved without powered machinery[edit]

This portion from "In France." "The largest surviving menhir in the world is located in Locmariaquer, Brittany, and is known as the Grand Menhir Brisé (Great Broken Menhir). Once nearly 20 meters high, today, it lies fractured into four pieces, but would have weighed near 330 tons when intact. It is placed third after the Thunder Stone in St. Petersburg and the Western Stone in the Western Wall as the heaviest object moved by humans without powered machinery."

Hmmmm.... This article [[1]] cites a stone weighing some 1,000 tons, clearly exceeding 330 tons and another weighing ca. 1,200 tons. So this part is not accurate.

Californicus (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except it doesn't say they were moved, they were found in the quarry. Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agriculture[edit]

In agriculture, standing stones are the result of clearing an area of land, from stones, for the agricultural growing of crops, or for example potatoes. Standing stones are the result of only being able to roll big stones out of the way and then upending them, to clear the surrounding area for the planting of barley, for instance. Smaller stones are piled up in a heap. This belief, is from my memory of overhearing gaelic speaking farmers in the 1960's in the inner Hebrides discussing managing stones on their allocated strip of farming land. Roladdar (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe: and, when they had a few really big ones, they put them in rows and circles. Errantios (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both Scandinavia and Sweden?[edit]

The article has two seperate entries for Scandinavia and Sweden, shouldn't they be merged, seeing as Sweden is part of Scandinavia? The Scandinavia section even lists regions where the tradition was strongest, some of them being in Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.26.84 (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs redirect for "masseba", has already plural[edit]

... "massebot". Weird :-) Arminden

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Menhir. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Menhir. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UK/Scottish representation?[edit]

I was wondering why such monuments as the Ring of Brodgar, the Standing Stones of Callanish, and Stonehenge aren't listed in this article. Do they somehow not qualify as menhir? QuakerIlK (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sardinia[edit]

for an unknown reason the Island Sardinia is not cited, although boasts one the greatest concentration of menhir in the world: about 800. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.84.243.164 (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Middle Bronze Age, Megalithic, Neolithic?[edit]

The intro states without ref "typically dating from the European middle Bronze Age." Later the article states

"Until recently, menhirs were associated with the Beaker people, who inhabited Europe during the European late Neolithic and early Bronze Age—later third millennium BC, c. 2800–1800 BC. However, recent research into the age of megaliths in Brittany strongly suggests a far older origin, perhaps back to six to seven thousand years ago."

DE.WIKI dates some menhirs in Belz, Morbihand département in Brittany, to as early as 7,000 years ago.

Anybody? == Peter NYC (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Annotated link template[edit]

@Pbsouthwood: hi. I see you introduced the "annotated link" template in 2018. I have never come across it in several years of editing and am not familiar with it. I see 3 problems:

  • Editors like me don't know how to deal with it. I have hesitated adding items in the usual *[[xyz]] format in between the "annotated link" items. What is the role of the *{{div col}} and {{div col end}} tags, do they delineate where the "annotated links" start & end? In the end it didn't matter that I have inserted regular items between "annotated link" items, but it took extra time to figure that out (trial-and-error).
  • Even some of those listed as "annotated links" had no annotation, really, so I had to add them manually.
  • How does one produce an annotation for an "annotated link", using the template? I thought maybe the "short description" would automatically show up as annotation, but either it doesn't, or some items are lacking that too.

Could you please direct me to a page dealing with "annotated links", or if you have a minute: write a short summary about what's essential to know about this template? Thank you! Arminden (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Arminden, see Template:Annotated link for an explanation of the use of the template, and Template:div col for an explanation of column division formatting. lf these descriptions do not sufficiently clarify, I suggest you request clarification of the specific points that remain unclear at these templates' talk pages, as template documentation is where people are expected to go for explanations on how to use templates.
The short description does automatically show up as the annotation, but for this to happen it must exist. You can create short descriptions where they are missing, or manually add annotation, or both, or neither. Putting in ordinary links does not break anything, it just does not automatically annotate, and the manual of style recommends annotation of "see also" lists (MOS:See also). Column division is entirely a separate formatting issue, but completely compatible at default width. Hope this helps, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 02:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Short description for some background. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 02:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Peter, and thank you very much! That's helpful. I've learned something new. Have a great day! Arminden (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Arminden, I am happy to have been able to help. One of the problems with working on Wikipedia is that there is so much obscure but potentially useful stuff that one runs into. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More menhirs in Spain[edit]

A site with more than 500 menhirs has been discovered near Huelva, Spain: Errantios (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stele Should Be Added to "See Also"[edit]

Menhirs are discussed in that page as a kind of stele, and the two are related, both being stone monuments in the shape of free-standing "pillars", menhirs typically larger, stele typically carved.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stele 24.10.139.113 (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stele is linked in the "History" section; MOS:NOTSEEALSO explains that links that appear in the article itself shouldn't usually be included in a "See also" section. MIDI (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]