Talk:Dolmen

Construction

Someone ought to include some information on construction, although it is difficult to locate I have found some very interesting speculative accounts on the construction of these structures. Perhaps others know of more scholarly resources.

Allee Couverte?

Nice pictures. They look a lot like allee couverte tombs to me though. Dolmen is a very non-specific term to British archaeologists at least, although I understand that the word is used more technically on the continent. When my photos come back from the developers I will add a picture of Kit's Coty which looks more like the simple stone table type.

• I've removed pictures of Hunebed & Dolmen Duh. They don't seem to be Dolmen's to me, but I stand open to correction, so...Coil00 23:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

hunebed

Can anyone clarify hunebed - is it a folk term for any megalithic tomb or does it refer to a specific type? If it is the latter then I'm all for moving it back to its own page and keeping Dolmen generic. adamsan 12:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hunebed is the Dutch word. Where I come from we used it to refer to the various megalithic tombs in our surroundings. The term was probably coined by people who didn't know of other megalithic tombs.

Several opinions on the meaning of hunebed:

• Any megalithic tomb through meaning extension.
• Any tomb built by the Trechterbeker(??)-people.
• Any tomb built from gigantic zwerkeien (roamboulders??).

Side note: Same question as the translation of manga from Japanese to Dutch:

• strip (extended meaning)
• Japanse strip (a specific, regional kind)
• manga (not a strip at all))

A map of Europe with hunebedden and such.

Based on floorplan there are four types:

• portaalgraf - Rolde - D17 & D18
• ganggraf - Gasteren - D10
• langgraf - Emmen - D43
• trapgraf - Eext - D13

Often they were originally buried in a mount. Encircling this mound often a ring of stones.

Disclaimer: I am not an archaeologist, nor a liguist.

Shinobu 00:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Shinobu. In that case I think Hunebed should stay here with the differences in floorplan getting their own pages. Portaalgraf sounds like it may be the same as Portal dolmen and gangraf the same as Gallery grave. Could langraf be a Passage Grave? Does trapgraf mean staircase grave, ie an underground Shaft and chamber tomb?

I Agree with above comment. The name Hunebed is in Dutch used for the Dolmen type of grave, originally only for the indigenous ones, but it is a generic term in Dutch. In addition I would like to add that literal translation is 'Hun's bed' or 'bed of the Huns'. (I would say so does the German word). The Huns did not get as far west as the Netherlands, and the term Hun seems to be used in older texts as a generic term for either barbarians or giants, but I would still say that translating it as simply 'Made by Giants' is a bit coarse. - F. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.89.212.249 (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rough guide to hunebedden

Okay, I've cought up on my reading a bit. The wikipedia articles you linked to are not really conclusive, so I think a long response is in order.

First things first, terminology.

• hunebedden is the plural of hunebed. Sometimes erroneously spelt with nn.
• zwerfkei litterally means roamboulder but is perhaps more properly translated using the clinical term glacial erratic. They are large boulders (think 30 metric tonnes, although there are large variations in sizes) deposited by glaciers.
• graven is the plural of graf. English term: grave.
• trilithon is any construction of two stones supporting a third stone.

Construction

Hunebedden consist of trilithons. The supporting stones are part of the wall, the covering stone is part of the ceiling. They are usually very roughly east-west aligned. So the supporting stones form the north and south walls of a hunebed. Two closing stones form the west and the east wall.

This is what is left of most hunebedden today. Originally the gaps between the large stones were filled with smaller stones and the whole tomb was covered in a mound of soil.

Types

Portaalgraf

Usually three trilithons. D18 has seven. The middle trilithon contains the entry. Instead of one southern supporting stone there are two, turned 90 degrees, so as to make a little portal. Hence the name.

Ganggraf

Ganggraven are usually larger than portaalgraven. D10 has three. (It is therefore very small for a gangraf. It is unfortunately also in very bad condition.) They have an extra, as I understand it slighly smaller, trilithon on the south side in front of the entry, forming a small corridor (gang) leading to the chamber. Hence the name.

8 of the 13 ganggraven have a ring of stones around the mound. In about half of the cases kidney shaped so as to connect to the entry.

Langgraf

Langraven are a bit of a mystery. D43 is the only one found in Drenthe, although more have been found in Saksen and Denmark. Contains two hunebedden of three and five trilithons. The name is coined because of the shape of the mound of soil, wich is longer than usual to accomodate for more than one hunebed.

It consists of a stone circle with one or two Steenkisten (stonecoffins) in it. Kleuske 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Trapgraf

Usually tree trilithons. A small staircase of three or four steps provides access to the chamber. D13 is the only one found in Drenthe, although more have been found in Saksen. Unfortunately the staircase has been destroyed in later times. The stones of this hunebed are exceptionally well crafted, unlike the other hunebedden.

G2 (G5)

This tomb has three trilithons. However the enry was located on the short side. Therefore it is thought by some to an enlarged dolmen(sic). Although the term dolmen is used it does appear in lists of hunebedden. The term dolmen is used apparently because the size (small) and shape are typically scandinavian.

Criticism of these classifications

Critics argue that it is too easy to confuse these types. For instance if a langgraf has lost it's corridor it might easily be mistaken for a portaalgraf. Also some argue that all hunebedden are variations on one theme and that one should not try to subclassify them.

Destruction

When Christianity startet to settle in Drenthe, the church, perhaps afraid of the symbolism of the hunebedden, did everything it could to portray them as pagan temples^[1] and the contructors as a brutal, savage, inhuman people. Religious fervor cuased a lot of the hunebedden to be destroyed.

The hunebedden had lost their respect. Parts of hunebedden were used for construction. Primitive archaeology was perhaps the final blow.

^ cf. Paapeloze kerk, "Priestless church". Kleuske 10:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

van Giffen & D49

Professor doctor A.E. van Giffen is often considered the first modern archaeolist to have studied the hunebedden. He documented te state all the hunebedden ware in, and numbered them. He was apparently very sad by the destruction he found.

When he wanted to reconstruct a hunebed, he chose a hunebed that was not in very good state. Perhaps because he didn't like the thought of messing with a hunebed that was in a good state, I don't know. The reconstruction could however not be finished without replacing the missing stones. D33 was eventually sacrificed for this purpose, because it was in a deplorable state in any case. As an archaeologist van Giffen was appalled by this idea. However he gave in, perhaps because of the pressure of others, perhaps because of the educational value, or perhaps just because it was the only way to give Drenthe back what it had lost so long ago. After reconstruction half of the hunebed was covered in the mound that had originally been there. Although this reconstruction was very controversial, it is as far as I know the only place were a Drentsch hunebed can be seen in it's orignal state.

Links

You can find much more information here:

Dutch text, pictures (English text): D18 D10 D43 D13 G2 (G5) (reconstructed from the original stones, found buried in the Groninger clay) D49

Epilogue

I think by now you have got enough information to make an informed judgement. And perhaps even enough for a whole new article ;-) Shinobu 17:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for all that Shinobu. I certainly agree with your points about the value of classification of these monuments, not to mention that two archaeologists will never interpret a site the same way. Many hunebedden look like gallery graves; the side entrance is an unusual feature but there are parallels in Denmark. The angle of the capstone in D44 would suggest a portal dolmen. Gangraffen seem to be an exotic type of passage grave. The langgraf tombs look to be related to the chambered long barrows of Britain and France especially the Medway tombs. I've never heard of similar types to the trapgraf though. I think they all deserve their own pages.

It seems that hunebed is a general term for several architecturally distinct monument types, just as dolmen is a popular term in English for the various chamber tombs. I get the impression that 'dolmen' on the European continent can also refer to an particular type of simple chamber tomb and would like to get some more information on this to incorporate into the article. adamsan 19:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The tombs in Drenthe, northern Germany, Denmark and southern Sweden were made by the same people, so certain parallels are perhaps not a surprise. I found the translation of Trechterbekervolk on the web: Funnelbeakerpeople. Not all dolmens in Europe were built by this people though.

The description statet in Gallery grave might fit, with differences noted, but I don't know if they were made by the same people.

D44 was probably not a portal dolmen, if the description on that page is correct. Note that apparently a portal dolmen is not the same as a portaalgraf. Portal dolmens don't occur in Drenthe I think. At least I'm quite sure I've never seen anything like the description on that page. In any case D44 has been heavily damaged (according to Van Giffen after 1848), so no one can tell how it looked originally. (That information came from the Dutch version of the webpage. The English version only stated that is was ruined.)

The passage grave picture indeed resembles a ganggraf, but it is very odd that it has only one trilithon. In Drenthe ganggraven are usually larger.

The langgraven may be chambered long barrows or something similar, but the article is not really specific enough.

I might also add that it is unfortunate that navigation between all these types of tombs is not really easy. Maybe I should sync things with the Dutch Wikipedia someday. Internationalization is very well, but unfortunately wiki doesn't post warnings to translated articles when the originals have been changed. Also some articles exist in only one of the two wikis. It is also unfortunate that finding a proper floorplan of a hunebed is so difficult.

As a last note, I shoud report the immense difference in sizes. You might have seen so from the pictures, but some are hardly longer than one man, and some are just really impressive big structures. I vaguely remember having flipped through a book on this years ago. I wonder... Shinobu 19:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We have an article on the Funnelbeaker culture which currently attributes al hunebedden to them and will need changing. User:Yak did lots of great work on central European archaeology and would probably be able to contribute but sadly he seems to be no longer on the wiki. If you ever find that book....

As for navigation problems this is a big difficulty; it doesn't help that there are so few authorities who agree on terminology in one language let alone two or three. Once we start including megaliths from places outside Europe then things get even more complicated. I will add the different hunebed types to the Chamber tomb article, which is the most general page we have on these monuments. adamsan 20:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Amen. To me hunebedden just were a part of the landscape. They were there. You learned about them. You visited them. Especially D1, D2 and D5 look very familiar. If I visit a hunebed again, maybe I'll sketch a floorplan myself, although that might be ages away. Shinobu 20:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On my (as yet unsuccessful) hunt for a floorplan I found this. Thank's to the girl in the photograph it gives you a very good impression of the size of the boulders. If we would ever include a schematic we should include a person. It gives an image a bit of human perspective which is impossible to create any other way. Shinobu 22:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Schematics!

Finally I found some! Often schematics give clearer look on a subject than a photo, so here goes:

Floorplan of a hunebed - Not quite "regular" in construction, but it shows the kidney-shaped circle of stones.

I haven't even begun to explore this site (in German and English):

• D13
• D15
• D21 - translated in German.
• D28
• D30
• D43 - shows quite nicely why it's called a langgraf.
• D49
• D53

It may sound a bit silly, but I don't know how to reach these images from the pages.

Compare:

• Allée couverte, for comparison
• Another a.c.
• Very odd a.c.
• A.c.
• A.c. - very different from my mental picture of hunebed...

I don't know if these are proper allées couvertes in the correct meaning, but it may be useful to have a look at them.

Maybe some differences can be explained by the usage of "roamboulders". You see, Drenthe does not contain rock formations from which stone could be delved.

Using these sketches and the photographs it must be possible to construct quite a comprehensive list of dolmen-types. We could even draw schematics with their characteristics. (Not for every dolmen, but for every difference.) Shinobu 23:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terminology

What I'm still curious about though is a definition of 'dolmen' that satisfies every international interpretation of the word. In Britain, the term has only a generic meaning and from what I infer from your info, this is a similar thing in the Netherlands where there are definite distinctions between megalithic tomb subtypes but 'hunebed' covers them all and this is what non-archaeologists call these stone monuments. From what you say about G2 (G5) though, I get the impression that the term 'dolmen' can apply to a specific monument type from northern Europe amongst archaeologists there. Is this how you read the description of this unusual example?

The way I currently see it is that all these monuments are chamber tombs and that dolmen/hunebed is a general term for the stone 'skeletons' of a European subgroup of chamber tombs. Furthermore, dolmens/hunebedden represent the remains of a more complicated group of many differing monuments built by different cultures in different periods. If some people treat a dolmen as something else though, something different from a hunebed (as G2 (G5)'s description implies) then I am wrong and we need to take account of this.

Also, in English a dolmen is the term for the remaining stone structure left when the covering barrow has gone. Would it be correct in Dutch to call D49 a 'dolmen/hunebed' or give it one of the more precise -graf names now that it has been restored? adamsan 22:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

dolmen - Maybe, I'm confused about this as well. Isn't dolmen supposed to be the French term? But it doesn't really look like one.

chamber tomb - It sounds like a nice general term to me. We have to account for the fact that for some people dolmen and hunebed are specific terms for regional variants, and for some general terms. We could use something like "In a broader sense hunebed/dolmen can also be any kind of..." and then use a link.

hunebed - I don't think it matters for nomenclature wether the burrow is still intact. A hunebed with intact burrow is still a hunebed.

*graf - A *graf is a kind of hunebed, wether only it's skeleton remains, it is restored, or still intact.

All in all, it is confusing the way people tend to use names. I'll try to compile a list of typical properties. This might take some time though. When we are finished with this I might draw some diagrams, but I won't start on that job until we have firm soil beneath our feet.

Thanks, that makes sense. The Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology's entry on dolmen says:

A traditional French term for any kind of megalithic chambered tomb. Formerly used occasionally in England but now obsolete except in the name Portal Dolmen

Cromlech is also described as an obsolete, general term. So I think until somebody can tell us that they use dolmen for a particular type of tomb, we should keep this article as open as possible, and use hunebed and cromlech as redirects to dolmen. We can then emphasise the different types and link to pages on each one and to chamber tomb. I look forward to seeing the results of your work on the hunebedden. adamsan 10:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just looked up hunebed too, the dictionary says:

The Dutch name for the Neolithic Passage graves found in the northern part of the Netherlands. These tombs are associated with Trichterbecker C material. (my emphasis)

This seems incorrect as only some hunebedden have passages leading into the chamber as you demonstrated earlier. Also, attributing them all to one phase of Trichterbecker sounds wrong. adamsan 10:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Table

Okay, the idea behind the following list is like this: by editing and adding we'll find out what the differences are. J.B. Meijer's site contains a litterature list. Some of these are in the collection of my university, but I don't know if I've got clearance to enter that building - or borrow anything. (What with having way too much interests and having to choose one study...)

"ref WIKI" should be used as warning that data comes from Wikipedia and that is should not be considered as a confirmation of the same data.

Also remember that the subclassification is criticized. (As mentioned above.)

• Hunebed (all types)

2700 en 2400 BC

ref [2]

ref ISBN 90-70884-18-6

3600 BC

ref[3]

ref ISBN 90-5826-123-9

note that both claim C14 sources

contruction:trilithons

coverings stones don't extend over the walls

material used:glacial erratics (source gives 20 tonnes)

ref [4]

ref ISBN 90-70884-18-6

boulders used in similar fashion to Northern German examples

ref ISBN 0-7478-0341-2

Recent work suggests use of stone rather than wood was a result of the availability of local materials rather than evidence of cultural links with other megalithic societies as previously thought

ref ISBN 1-902771-39-7 p193

originally padded with smaller stones

originally covered in mound of soil

• Hunebed\Portaalgraf

short sides closed with closing stones

one wallstone of (usually) the middle trilithon replaced with two portal stones

• Hunebed\Ganggraf

short sides closed with closing stones

one wallstone of (usually) the middle trilithon replaced with two portal stones

another (may be smaller) trilithon in front of portal

may have ring of stones

• Hunebed\Langgraf

short sides closed with closing stones

one wallstone of (usually) the middle trilithon replaced with two portal stones

is located together with other tomb(s) in a single elongated mound

(may have) ring of stones

Similarities with Medway tombs and long barrows of Northern Germany

ref ISBN 0-7478-0341-2

• Hunebed\Trapgraf

short sides closed with closing stones

one wallstone of (usually) the middle trilithon replaced with two portal stones

small staircase to entry

• Hunebed\G2

one of the short sides closed off with a closing stone

• (type?) Ireland, Denmark, France, Portugal

oldest shortly after 5000 BC, apex between 4000 en 3000 BC

ref[5]

ref ISBN 90-5826-123-9

• (type?) Belgium

about 2800 BC

ref[6]

ref ISBN 90-5826-123-9

You are encouraged to add things as you see fit.

---

You have to be very careful when web-crawling. I think this site is a sufficient warning not to believe everything you read in itself. Makes all kinds of claims, states no sources.

On another note, did you know that 27 endangered species of lichen live on hunebedden? [7] Or that the "Papenloze Kerk" has an interesting more modern history? :-) Shinobu 12:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hünengräber

I've just walked into the library and no one complained. ISBN 3-89442-118-5 contains pretty pictures.

• Großsteingräber = megalithic tombs
• Hünengräber = hunebedden (name coined by Saxo Grammaticus apparently)

The book states that the megalithic tombs in northern Germany are a sub-class of Ganggräben (which is therefore not synonymous with ganggraven).

The book differentiates between 5 classes of tombs:

1. Tombs in a rectangular enclosure
   • Don't occur in Drenthe.
   • Are very neat and regular.
   • Length of enclosure 30 to 100 m.
   • Width of enclosure 5 to 9 m.
   • Very neat geometrical proportions (1:5, 1:3). Odd, isn't it?
   • Contains normal hunebed, which is surprisingly tiny compared to the whole structure, and located very off-center (usually to the west).
2. In an oval enclosure
   • More or less like some ganggraven.
3. Rectangular without enclosure
   • Like portaalgraven.
4. Trapezoid
   • Very weird. I can't remember having seen something like it before.
   • Floorplan is trapezoid.
   • Usually broader on eastern side.
5. In a mound of soil
   • This is thought to be the original state, I think.
   • Could not find these in the catalogue of the book.

I'll compile this date into the table if I have time to do so. Sometimes German ganggraven have two entry trilithons. The stone circles are never "kidney-shaped" (like D53 and D21), but always oval or rectangular. I have compiled some data from the schematics in the book. Maybe I'll do something with that someday. One of the graves is dated 2500-2000 BC. Don't know if that is typical though. The book also contains a map of locations. Shinobu 16:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The view from the side in the sketch of D21 has it's vertical scale wrong... I thought the boulders looked a bit flat in that one. So I did some pen & paper math. The lower picture is 1m:32px , but the vertical axis of the side view is more like 1m:20px.

To calculate this I used measurements by van Giffen, stating that the inner size of the chamber is (l; b; h) = (6,5m; 2,2m; 1,50m à 1,70m).

The scale of the top-down view is probably okay. Shinobu 18:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sketches/diagrams.

I've got enought data to do a sketch of a ganggraf with circle.

This could be used to explain other Drentsche hunebedden as well.

I intend to do one of the German rectangular type 1 things too. Other regional types on demand, provided a few good photos and information on dimensions (length, height, width, perimeter, anything).

Only one problem remains: real life (you know, that room with the blue ceiling). It's getting in the way. Shinobu 16:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant. It is time to start creating some articles! adamsan 21:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The sketch has been finished for some time now. Unfortunately real life turns out to be quite an exhausting experience. It may take a while before I post a first version, also because I want to double check the dimensions. Regards, Shinobu 20:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

reading dolmens

perhaps the article also ought to mention that such dolmens and their sites can be "read" often giving a far greater understanding; such "readings" consisting of actual reading of the markings as sometimes they are an ancient language as old norse etc, and also, reading the location or site and its surrounding "imprints" / imprinting can depcit the persons who were there (this later is a form of psychic reading but not actually, it is engaging the location e.g. from a broader overhead picture to read clearly the spiritual "imprint" left behind that is still there 1000s of years later) /s/ lil dol man sr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Factoid spoted.

"Dolmens were usually covered with earth or smaller stones to form a barrow, though in many cases that covering has weathered away, leaving only the stone 'skeleton' of the burial mound intact."

That is an old and not proven theory. In fact most domens never was covered and that's easy to "prove". There are a lot of mounds around, often in the same area as the domens and those does not got dolmens inside (or it is wery rare). An other thing is that it is seldomly any traces of erosion at the mounds either. So, how come most of the mounds covering domens are gone when the mounds that does not have dolmens inside remains?

Brownshill Dolmen

I changed the weight of the capstone to 150t; based on this sign at the site of the dolmen:

• Sign at Brownshill Dolmen
  Sign at Brownshill Dolmen
• Extract - Click to read
  Extract - Click to read

Moving Stones

I notice that a few non-native speaker have been putting their tuppence in on this article - particularly after looking at this talk page. But one quote from the main page does disturb me:

"And all around the country, several dolmens stand still, such as the ones of Passebonneau and des Gorces near Saint-Benoît-du-Sault."

The "dolmens stand still" means they are not moving at the moment. "Dolmens still stand", "Dolmens are still standing" or even "Dolmens remain standing" would be more appropriate. TinyMark 19:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nov. 15, 2007 Warning

This article was recommended by MTG.com at http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/arcana/1463, so we might see a fair amount of vandalism on the article today.--Bedford 05:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Built by Giants eh? (Sarah777 23:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC))

Weights

At the sci desk we were looking at the alleged 150 tonne size of a capstone with Franamax getting this:

rock is 160-190 lb/ft3, so a 20' x 8' by 1' slab would be around 12 tons. To get 150 tons, you need 50' x 9' x 4' - none of the pics look to be quite that impressive

If no-one objects I'll change it to 1.5 tonne with a few more calculations. check with a math person Julia Rossi (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Korean dolmen

Korea holds more dolmens than any other places in the world, we need to add more information about Korean dolmens and add map. This article contains so little information about Korea when there are huge dolmen research and studies was conducted from Korea by foreign researchers.--Korsentry 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

This May we went to Brittany for its menhirs, dolmen and alignments. By now I've written our personal 'trip-report', which may, still incompletely, clarify dolmen from the French perspective. It's a multi-page PDF, that I'll be happy to share. BTW. A 'cromlech' is an area surrounded by stones, not a dolmen. The stones could, have been part of a dolmen's covering's retaining wall, and be mistaken for a cromlech.173.66.169.150 (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Korean dolmen - warrants a separate article

I'm stopping now, but there is clearly enough material for a stand-alone article. See [8], [9] and [10]. The title of one of these, Constructing "Korean" origins: a critical review of archaeology is tantalising. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Dolmen

The word "Dolmen" is from Turkic origin and means "to build, to construct with stones". It probably came to use in Europe with the Huno-iranic invasion or the Mongolian horde later on. The etymology is clearly not Breton, English or Nordic. The explanation with taol maen is a clear speculation.

Table: From Middle English table, tabel, tabil, tabul, from Old English tabele, tabul, tablu, tabule, tabula, ("table, board"; also as tæfl, tæfel), from *tabla, *tabula (“table, board”), an early Germanic borrowing of Latin tabula (“tablet, board, plank, chart”). Reinforced in Middle English by Old French table, from the same Latin source. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/table

• Tell the OED, not us Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As you can see we have *b as in stable root everywhere ( exept german spelling). Where is the connection with "taol" where *b is missing.

The b is missing due to regular Breton sound developments. It's an ancient loanword from Latin tabula, see the AHD quoted here.

Note how the user above (who has not signed but is identified as one Nix1129 in the history) baldly asserts wild, completely implausible speculation as fact and dismisses the established explanation, both with absolute confidence, without giving any arguments or sources! On Wikipedia, I have more than enough experience with this kind of clueless, wilfully ignorant anti-science POV pushers who follow the Pan-Turkist delusion/dogma/ideology that Turkic peoples were present everywhere and everything has Turkic origins à la Sun Language Theory and goropism, academic scholarship and actual evidence be damned – this is typical bullshit like creationism, for which "fringe science" or even "pseudoscience" is too mild a characterisation. It's just plain old chauvinism/ethnocentrism/supremacism trying to give itself a serious veneer. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"Dolmin" date

The etymology says: "the current spelling was introduced about a decade later and had become standard by 1995"

Surely that should be 1895 or 1795, not 1995, right?Shepazu (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You'd think. Introduced here by the normally reliable Doug Weller. Even the original OED only mentions "dolmin" as a word "inexactly reproduced" in French, & gives no English uses at all. His Dutch source is clearly referring only to French usage and actually says "about 1885". I will adjust. Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well caught. The source does say 1885 and my fingers were obviously one key over. Johnbod, don't you just hate typos? You changed it to 1895, I've changed it to 1885. Somehow I got diverted from this article and didn't finish my editing as you are indeed correct about the source referring to French usage - I was going to discuss the etymology further but it all got lost. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the whole area is obviously laid with typo-mines. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Brazilian dolmen

There is a dolmen in brazil it's called "Pedra da Santana"(Santana Stone or Saint Anne Stone). The stone is located at the Chapada Diamantina Park - Bahia State ( http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapada_Diamantina )

It's possible to see some pictures of the stone here.

http://g1.globo.com/VCnoG1/0,,MUL106809-8491,00.html >

The wikipedia pt-br page for the "Pedra da Santana" shows a completely different photo, saying it's in Paramirim, Bahia, so it seems that Brazil has two dolmens. http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedra_da_Santana http://historum.com/ancient-history/74218-why-dolmens-found-all-around-world-2.html (higher definition picture)

In addition, there's a Brazilian 'stonehenge' in Amapá, north of Brazil. It's a stone circle, but not a dolmen, but worth mentioning. http://revistaplaneta.terra.com.br/secao/ciencia/no-amapa-uma-stonehenge-amazonica — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.24.1 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 4 June 2015

We've got an article on that, see Amazon Stonehenge. Needs work, I put some sources on the talk page a while ago. But it's not a dolmen so I'm not sure it should be included. It's not a henge either! Doug Weller (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dolmen. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070225094959/http://www.archeo.ru:80/eng/themes/dolmens/ to http://www.archeo.ru/eng/themes/dolmens/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106162228/http://megalith.ru:80/articles/ to http://megalith.ru/articles/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dolmen. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archeo.ru/eng/themes/dolmens/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://megalith.ru/articles/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070324210503/http://www.heritage.go.kr/eng/her/her_08.jsp to http://www.heritage.go.kr/eng/her/her_08.jsp

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)