Talk:Glauberg
Latest comment: 5 years ago by European Prehistorian in topic Images wanted / Bilder gesucht
 | A fact from Glauberg appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 October 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Images wanted / Bilder gesucht edit
Does anyone have access to a legally usable picture (preferably aerial) of the fortification? The article could do with one. Hat irgendwer Zugang zu einem legal verwendbaren Bild (am besten Luftbild) der Befestigungesanlage? Der Artikel könnte es brauchen. Danke/Thanks, athinaios 19:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- please add the view of the glauberg tumulus from above which seems to clearly show a geo glyph of wolf / gotwuf part of the symbols of gobekli tepi and so part of that earliest religion from 100000 bc see this link for one such image http://firstlegend.info/3rivers/firstlegendimages2010/Glauberg%20Tumulus%20sq.jpg ; note the gofwuf symbol is part of that relgion from india to all Europe etc and also to egypt, maya morphed to other versions of same symbol; and the warrior head dress spoken of as mistletoe symbol is actually other symbol of power , 47.18.43.166 (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)lord humongus, aussie overloard !!
- We need academic sources for this article, not fringe speculation. Doug Weller (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Glauberg isn't an Oppidum. The only Oppida by deffinition in Germany are Manching, Kehlheim and Staffelberg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.181.201 (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Who says this? And about which definition of oppidae are you talking about.--Kgfleischmann (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- According to the Dehn definition (see Oppidum) it needs to date to the 2nd or 1st century BC...Drow69 (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- According to the article that definition is an proposal with limited acceptance. And btw. in Germany where more than the three Oppida of the IP, Heidetrank Oppidum for example. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that the above list is too short...that is why the oppidum article lists more locations in Germany. You might want to add a link to Heidetrank to that list. But overall, since the use of oppidum is derived from Caesar, and he clearly used it to describe those places he had observed first hand (i.e. those in existence in the 1st century BC), this definition does make sense. It certainly seems to be the favoured one in archaeological texts (at least those I have seen recently). Also, note that the paragraph that refers to Glauberg as an oppidum in the oppidum article is not sourced.Drow69 (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- According to the article that definition is an proposal with limited acceptance. And btw. in Germany where more than the three Oppida of the IP, Heidetrank Oppidum for example. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- According to the Dehn definition (see Oppidum) it needs to date to the 2nd or 1st century BC...Drow69 (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Having talked to the archaeologists there a couple of weeks ago, they call the site a hillfort, which is more in line with standard German usage. The comparisons with oppida, e.g. Manching are rather misleading given their later date European Prehistorian (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)