Talk:Dol hareubang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Visitors from the sea[edit]

Visitors From the Sea: Were Hareubang introduced by visitors from the sea, as suggested in the article as one explanation? If so, who were these visitors from the sea? The similarities to other basalt statues in the Polynesian world seem obvious: made from similar material; A cap or hat on the head; large eyes; arms on the belly, one higher than the other; found on island locations.Rockford1963 02:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to this story than the article conveys. See here:

http://eng.buddhapia.com/_Service/_ContentView/ETC_CONTENT_2.ASP?pk=0000593782&sub_pk=&clss_cd=0002202985&top_menu_cd=0000000329

131.183.89.23 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origins, time[edit]

Interesting article, but it doesnt say when the totems were built. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.149.75.88 (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I noticed about dol harubang[edit]

Dol harubang is very similar to some Slavic pagan idols. Komitsuki (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should add name for female version[edit]

The female versions of these statues are referred to as dol hareumang 돌하르망, "stone grandmother" in Jeju dialect. As souvenirs in this honeymoon resort, the small statues are often sold as a male/female couple two piece set.

Would suggest adding the name for the female version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.185.32 (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shamanic mushroom culture[edit]

The history section places a lot of emphasis on what I would term the "mushroom theory", that dol hareubangs were linked to a shamanic movement linked to hallucinogenic mushrooms. This seems like a fringe theory to me, as the article on Amanita muscaria notes that this is a popular topic for anthropological speculation unconstrained by things like evidence. Indeed, such a movement is not mentioned in the article on Korean shamanism. Unless this has some reliable sources it should probably be removed. For now I will create a section for the dubious content and tag it to warn readers. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]