Talk:Ħal Saflieni Hypogeum

[Untitled]

• should be Ħal...Srl 08:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This article (as of 25 Feb 2006) is in serious disagreement with the official site for the Hypogeum, at http://www.heritagemalta.org/hypogeum.html. These include dating, location, depth, etc.

• The specifications are in accordance to UNESCO World Heritage Site website. Please list the discrepancies and will discuss them one by one. Maltesedog 10:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The museum itself emphasizes that the "7000 dead bodies" were never found nor documented. This was an estimate based on extrapolating the results of initial excavations to the full volume of the Hypogeum. The exact figure is not know but is proabably much less. Thus the 7000 was just a good guess based on the facts known by that time. It found its way into scientific articles of the day and spread further to everywhere, but it is nevertheless not correct.

The museum has a big "untrue myths and facts about Hypogeum" screen at the entrance.

Kurinurm (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The article says it is the only prehistoric underground temple, but the Xagħra Stone Circle stub disagrees. :S _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 20:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, vodka amend as only prehistoric temple accessible to the public Maltesedog 06:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Removed section "Mysterious accounts" as hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.225.212.147 (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• A Snake pit? That far underground? I think someone is just guessing or watched a little too much Raiders of the Lost Ark. 20:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the "cave in" section. I removed this, and gave my reasoning, and someone has seen fit to revert my edit and direct me to the sandbox. The section appears to have no purpose other than promoting some unnecessary paranormal anecdotes. Rather than start an edit war here, I will ask- what is the purpose of allowing this passage? The anecdotes are clearly not factual, nor historically imporetant, or even interesting. They are certainly not encyclopedic. 68.43.27.139 (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The National Geographic Magazine, January-June 1920 Volume XXXVII has an article entitled: MALTA: The Halting Place of Nations. First Account of Remarkable Prehistoric Tombs and Temples Recently Unearthed on the Island. By William Arthur Griffiths. This articles describes the snake pit, many artifacts and thousands of human skulls found here among other interesting things. Is that an acceptable enough source to keep in the Wikipedia entry what many of us consider interesting parts of this location? The entire text is available online. valkyree 23:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs)

This same article referred to by me above also mentions another article about snake pits in the temples of the Incas. The article is entitled "The Wonderland of Peru" by Hiram Bingham, National Geographic, April, 1913 valkyree 23:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs)

Snake pit?

In the current visit there is no mention of "snake pits". There is a further level that after some steps falls two meters. I think the audio-guide mentions the possibility of traps, but it could also be a deposit pit. I think that it is not stressed enough that the floor of the hypogeum was filled with a mix of earth and bones (those of the estimated 7,000 people). Only in the upper chambers, the remains were arranged as individuals. Elsewhere it seems that the practice was moving around old remains, giving priority to the collective over the individuals. Somebody with access to sources should stress it in the article. --Error (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Face brine?

This term is used in the first line of the description section - it makes no sense. Can the editor who inserted it, or indeed a.n.other explain just what a 'face brine' is? thanks Geopersona (talk)

Seems to be leftover from the vandalism in February. I've reverted it to the earlier text "surface shrine" - and all the directional words in that sentence also got inverted (entrance/exit, lower/upper, etc.) so I fixed those and changed the "flint and steel" reference back to the original "flint" since I'm fairly certain they weren't using steel at the time.  ;) I don't have a user account set up, but this sort of thing is too irritating to leave as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.160.214 (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)