Talk:Geoglyph

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Pictureglyph"?

This word appears to be a neologism. Googling "pictureglyph" only brings up links to this page, or clones of it. The word "Pictoglyph" exists: could it be applied to this subject?SiGarb 15:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A query

This last line of the section quoted below is unclear.

"This Geoglyph is derived from a 6000 year old pictureglyph known as “El Señor de los Báculos” located in the Rio Loa area near Calama, Chile.

The Geoglyph is located at an altitude of 2469 metres (8100 feet) above sea level – It is located on the Llano de la Pacienia (Plain of Patience), 13 kilometres from the town of San Pedro.

The stone walls forming this geoglyph are 1200 metres (3936 feet) in length.

This image forms part of the pastoral cosmology. The sun cuts across this pictureglyph at the solstice."

Whose pastoral cosmology? Does the final sentence refer to the new geoglyph, or the old "pictureglyph"? Which solstice, summer or winter? And "cuts across" in what way (does the sun never shine directly on it at any other time)?SiGarb 15:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

Over half of this article reads like an advert for Andrew Rogers. A mention that Rogers does geoglyphs and a link to his page, where most of this information belongs, should suffice. Someone want to do it? Morgaledh 05:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crop Circles?

Could crop cirles be defined as geoglyphs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.210.185 (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trees as geoglyphs?

And if crop circles are geoglyphs, despite their transience, what about the use of tree plantings to create designs or patterns, or even a name like the 'STUDEBAKER' trees in Indiana (coordinates 41.67N,86.49E). Is it art? It is certainly a design on a large scale, intended for viewing from the air. Rudy22 (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of entry

The concept of Geoglyps is attributed only to Arthur D. Faram. It is a hypothesis only and not even a theory much less an actual scientific method. There has been insufficient bordering on a complete lack of evidence that is necessary for the hypothesis to become a theory. This information should be included in the article to avoid the misconception that it is a scientific method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.182.118 (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a term used in a number of reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of these sources is UNESCO, who uses the term 'geoglyph' in their designation of the Nazca lines as a world heritage site. Schray (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fovant

Should the 'Contemporary' section mention the Regimental Badges at Fovant? I am undecided. Old Aylesburian (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List?

I realize that many geoglyphic sites are not understood or studied, and therefore may not meet Wikipedia's strict criteria for inclusion. But for lack of a better repository of information, shouldn't they at least be listed here? At worst, it would encourage more research into them. After seeing it mentioned on a TV show, it was very difficult to locate the band of holes in the Cajamarquilla hillside above Humay, Ica, Peru, at 13°42'40"S 75°52'30"W, which apparently lacks an official name or category. Steve8394 (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a geolyphic site. See Band of Holes. And to repeat what I wrote elsehwere, . John Hyslop's book on the Inka Road system https://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=x7FHVfumHZbZavCvgOAC&id=Eu5OAAAAMAAJ&dq=Humay+Holes+Peru&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=++Holes++ says that holes in rows have been found on a low ridge on the north side of the Pisco Valley (Shipper I933;33); Wallace 1971;|105-106), Although their role has not been determined. a hypothesis for investigation is that they were used for storage. They are between two important Inka sites" I found this by using 'Humay' and 'holes' as search termse. Another search turned up "Wallace's (1971:116-117) published registry lists a site (PV 58-64) that produced abundant Inka and Tarapaca A fragments at a point on the south side ... It is described as having stone structures and a number of stone- walled holes up to 2 m deep." in Hyslop's book, which may or may not be the same holes - I can't tell as Google is only producing snippets. I see from your article on the first field expedition what Wallace's report is in Spanish, which I don't read. I will attempt to get Hyslop's book from inter-library loan. What I'm looking for specifically is a source for the storage hypothesis. Shippee only did an aerial survey (in 1931).

The purpose of our articles is not to encourage research or to bring new information to the public - something a lot of readers don't realise, which is understandable. This article should only mention sites for which we have articles stating the are geoglyphs. @@@@ Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Add Russian site to list?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_geoglyph 50.43.36.155 (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geoglyph. 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) 15:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of obsolete external links (October 2020)

I removed the external link to the Scuplture magazine article by Ken Scarlett titled "Andrew Rogers and the Rhythm of Life" (url=https://sculpture.org/404.aspx?404;http://www.sculpture.org:80/documents/scmag04/april04/rogers/rogers.shtml) because that page no longer exists.

And I removed the external link to Photogrammetric Reconstruction of the Geoglyphs of Nasca and Palpa (url=http://www.photogrammetry.ethz.ch/research/peru/index.html) because that page also no longer exists. Widjididji (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Widjididji[reply]

Sahara

There are thousands. Giant pnes. Only seen from air or google. Add please. --193.153.204.165 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Example

There is a geoglyph near Zuratkul lake in the Urals, reported in 2011, and not mentioned in the tourist blurb when I visited in 2004. I have added the data to the table, after some battle with the "shiny new" editing interface. AKarley (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

earthwork

A clarification of "earthworks" and "geoglyph" in terms of each other is needed here. On the (archaeological) earthwork page, geoglyphs are listed as a specific kind of earthwork. Maybe here we should start off by saying a geoglyph is that type of earthwork which.... Kdammers (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Geoglyph"