Talk:Avebury/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page move

Avebury Henge is not a common name for this site (Google count: 603 vs. for example 4,460 for "Avebury stone circle"). Given that the site comprises numerous different features, I suggest it be moved simply to Avebury and the village article merged with it as it is just another description of the monument. adamsan 20:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm putting this suggestion on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please add your thoughts there. adamsan 20:06, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(from WP:RM)

Avebury Henge → Avebury

• Avebury Henge is not a common name for this site (Google count: 603 vs. (for example) 4,460 for "Avebury stone circle"). Given that the site comprises numerous different features, referring only to the henge in an article that covers the earthworks, several stone circles and a barrow doesn't do the complex justice. Given the rarity of the current name and that the site and the village are synonymous, I request that the archaeological site be moved simply to Avebury and the disambig page that's there now be moved to Avebury (disambiguation). adamsan 20:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the suggested merge of the village article with the henge article. They are not synonymous; Avebury, Wiltshire describes a modern village and civil parish (including the adjoining villages of Beckhampton and West Kennett), with details on population, local government, history, etc; the stone circle is only one thing briefly discussed and then largely from the perspective of the recent history of the circle. Avebury Henge discusses the stone circle in much greater detail from an archeological perspective. Any individual reader is unlikely to be interested in both the detailed history of the henge, and the current demographics of the civil parish. No issue with renaming Avebury Henge to Avebury stone circle or such; I agree the name isn't the one that immediately springs to mind for the circle. -- Chris j wood 22:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, would you accept the monument moving to Avebury though and the parish remaining at Avebury, Wiltshire? If not, we must put our heads together and come up with a new title for the monument article. adamsan 22:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Ok, obviously provided there is a clear link from Avebury to Avebury, Wiltshire. -- Chris j wood 00:32, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Definitely agree to this. Most people typing in Avebury as a bare word would expect to see an article on the rather pretty and archeologically significant stone circle; some might want to see something about the nearby village and a link at the top should be enough. You probably need a redirect from the "Avebury stone circle" to "Avebury", too. --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 00:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• When these articles are ready, leave a note here with instructions on what goes where and I'll do the moves. - UtherSRG 05:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I agree that the ancient monument should be described at Avebury. Using ", Wiltshire" to distinguish the village seemed totally arbitrary so I have moved the village to Avebury (village). (This is different from what I did to Stanton Drew.) -- RHaworth 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• For the record, in 2009 the page for the village was moved to Avebury, Wiltshire and Avebury (village) became a redirect. -- Wire723 (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Beautification

The article contains this sentence: "Keiller excavated beneath the stones he righted and dug further during the programme of beautification he forced onto the villagers after buying the site in 1934."

It sounds like this was somehow unpopular. Is this interpretation correct? If so, why was it unpopular? Gwimpey 21:03, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Avebury was a working agricultural village and it showed. Keiller's description of Avebury before he restored it is quoted in Mike Pitts' Hengeworld:

'the tangle of rusty pigwire, the accumulation...of old tins and bottles...[and] the refuse heaps...contributed ungenerously towards rendering the once majestic site...the outstanding archaeological disgrace of Britain' Antiquity 13 (1939) p223.

Keiller demolished buildings, fences and trees in order to clear/sanitise the site and he and subsequent landowners made efforts to remove the human presence altogether. At the same time though he employed a lot of the locals in his projects and gave it the tourist economy it now has. There's an article from the Telegraph reproduced here that goes into more detail. adamsan 21:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page layout

Does anyone else now have loads of white space on their browser? Should the page be slightly re-designed? - Ballista 04:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Defence

"The henge... has no defensive purpose, as the ditch is on the inside." At least one other article (Henge, I think) mentions the possibility of defending the world against something on the inside of the monument, which seems fairly straightforward and not any more unlikely than anything else. Has any work been done on this? Does anyone know of any references? It seems like an interesting idea. Leushenko 00:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Aubrey Burl in "Prehistoric Avebury" argues for a defensive function, postulating that the inner ditch is present to prevent cattle inside the enclosure damaging the bank. Apparently the Mandan practised this type of construction. Not sure I agree with him but the current easy consensus view of the lack of defensive functions needs challengig. Burl's book is excellent and well worth reading. Far better than this article! User:badtypist —Preceding comment was added at 20:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A4 national route - quoi???

"National route" is not an expression I've ever heard for the A4 and not one that I would want to use unless I wished to be looked at very strangely in the pub. It is not used in the wiki article on the A4 road (Great Britain). I am minded to alter it - any views please? 92.234.10.126 (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad Area Info

"Most of the surviving structure consists of earthworks, known as the dykes. A massive ditch and external bank henge 421 metres (1,381 ft) in diameter and 1.35 kilometres (0.84 mi) in circumference enclose an area of 115,000 square kilometres (44,402 sq mi)." I removed the text following the word "circumference", as it's clearly absurd, then rewrote the text for grammar. The true area seems to be about 12 hectares, but I haven't found a top-quality reference to that effect. 86.137.91.131 (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Faces of Avebury

I have moved this newly added section here because it appears to me to be unreferenced nonsense. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone has bought out a book about the faces. [1]. Whether the paragraph should go back is another question, do we publicise every theory? MortimerCat (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Faces Of Avebury

There is a theory that a lot of the stones at Avebury have been personified and have had faces added. Many of the stones have 3 or 4 apparently purposefully made faces and appear to be made stronger, perhaps by design at various times in the day/year. Whether the faces were added by the 'Beaker people' who constructed Avebury or whether they were added some time after is unknown but adds an interesting alternate interest in the stones.

Moved from article

I have moved this section, completely uncited, of what looks to me like trivia from the article to here.

In the media

The area was used in Children of the Stones (1977), a British television drama produced for children. In it, the village was renamed Milbury.

Derek Jarman's silent, 10-minute short film A Journey to Avebury (1971) is set amongst the stones.

The stones were seen in a key moment in the 1998 comedy Still Crazy, starring Billy Connolly, Stephen Rea, Jimmy Nail, Timothy Spall and Bill Nighy. The film also features a scene inside the Red Lion at Avebury.

It was featured on the 2005 TV programme Seven Natural Wonders as one of the wonders of the West Country.

Avebury is one of the "uncommonly British days out" featured in the 2005 book Bollocks to Alton Towers, the authors recommending it as the antithesis of the packaged and restricted tourist experience to be found at the nearby and more famous Stonehenge.

Catherine Fisher's 2005 novel Darkhenge is set in and around Avebury. The village and henge also feature heavily in Robert Goddard's 2005 novel Sight Unseen.

Some of the stones from the Avebury henge appear on the sleeve of the 1973 Yes album Tales from Topographic Oceans among other world-famous monuments.

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Overprecision?

The Monument para 1. says The ditch alone was 21 metres (69 ft) wide and 11 metres (36 ft) deep, with its primary fill carbon dated to between 3400 and 2625 BC. I would like to change the last date to 2600. There is no need to overprecision, especially as no creditable source (in fact no source at all) is cited to assure us that such carbon dating accuracy is achievable. LouisBB (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dates are given as a range. They are not pretending to be accurate and represent a probability of the actual date being in that range. As such, I don't think 2625 is being overly precise. That it's unsourced is, however, problematic. Slap a {{fact}} tag on it so people know it requires a source. Nev1 (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It would help if there was a better explanation about how it was radio carbon dated. My point is what did they date? In a similar case the Pyramids were radio carmon dated. I doubted this for a while since they can't date stone this way, until I realized they dated specks of charcoal found in the mortar according to Mark Lehner. Understanding the method helps evaluate the reliability. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, a {{fact}} template will help, but I would not leave it in forever. No other age estimate is given in the article to this accuracy x±1 year or x±5 year or even x±25 year. I would say that for most readers it is adequate if the nearest 100 year is cited especially as here a date range is given which is 775 years. It is just silly. In this section there are other silly statements like this one, namely those relating to the size measurements first in metres, then in brackets in feet. I think it is accurate enough if over 1000 metres the size conversion is given to the nearest foot. Can anyone tell if these measurements were taken before or after decimalisation? As we are told in the Henge article that a henge is a near-circular or oval construction, I would venture the question: In how many positions was the diameter of the henge and circles measured to come to the stated figures?. What we should not do is to pretend that we know something accurately, when we don't. Why is it necessary anyway to give both diametres and circumferences data if we pretend that we are talking about circles? In any case have the ditch diametres not changed in time? All in all, it would be nice if we could question those, who first cited the measurements and dates, so I shall put a template in.LouisBB (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not just look for a source? It's not exactly difficult to find.[2]. It's clear though that there's lots missing from this article, such as the radio carbon dating of the grain pit discovered when the school site was excavated.[3] --Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

OK then, do you want the job? In the meantime instead of the suggestion, which came from Nev1, which I implemented I should have made a correction to quote the date as 3000±400 years B.C. unless you preferred 3012.5±387.5 B.C.? LouisBB (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the facts as reported in the literature; the various radio carbon datings are clearly shown in the source I linked to above, along with a couple of possible interpretations for their disagreement. Wouldn't you prefer the facts as well? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Although 3000±400 BC is understandable, 3400–2600 is more straight forward. Plus I think giving it as a range is better as that's what the source does; the uncalibrated radiocarbon results (the ones ending in bc rather than BC) are given as a ±, but if my understanding of the calibration curve is correct, when the dates are calibrated the range won't necessarily have the same probability of being the same distance from the mid-point. It's difficult to explain without a graph, but I think that why the sources give the calibrated results as a range rather than with a ±.

I think the best way to solve the problem about unsourced material is to see if I can get my hands on one of the Gillings books. The Neolithic period isn't my favourite, but as the site is a World Heritage Site it would be worth the effort. As an aside, the {{fact}} would only be a temporary measure, highlighting to both reader and editor that it needs to be sourced. Nev1 (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the UK has never "gone decimal". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, thanks for picking up the mistake, and forgive my malappropism, or slip of the pen, or the mind; it did go metric though, which is what matters here.LouisBB (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The UK has never "gone metric" either. All our road signs still show miles, for instance, not kilometres. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, the money did go decimal and many things did go metric. My point here was to ask if anyone knew whether the measurements cited were all made in metric units, or anglosaxon, or SI, and trying to highlight that citing of for instance the diameter of the great circle as 335 metres (1,099 ft) was a bit too precise, because we shall never know either its accuracy, or the circle's circularity; then to add to this the circumference as well? Somebody must have done a lot of useless numbercruching! As I said, why stuff the reader's head with numbers? Why blind the reader with science? What is the value of such accuracy, when you cannot express any measurement accurately by any other means than statistically, by a probability function? If the source is scientific then it will do that!LouisBB (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Our currency did indeed go decimal, in 1971, but that was all. To address your specific point though, there's no number crunching involved in using the {{convert}} template, as in "335 metres (1,099 ft)". The MoS requires that all measurements are presented consistently, either imperial/metric or metric/imperial, so conversions are very frequently going to be necessary; it matters not a whit whether the original measurements were made in cubits, inches, or nanometres. In addition to that though, the other requirement is that the conversion not give the illusion of a greater precision than the number being converted. perhaps that's at the heart of your comments? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Malleus. At least we agree with the essence of what I am trying to convey. Your point about The MoS requires that all measurements are presented consistently, either imperial/metric or metric/imperial, so conversions are very frequently going to be necessary; it matters not a whit whether the original measurements were made in cubits, inches, or nanometres. The English Wikipedia is English only nominally, as the name referes to the language in which it is written. The US introduced a Metric Act in 1866, but it would be more appropriate to express measurements in SI units. My next question is: Is it OK to include data which might falsify the facts just to adhere to the MoS requirement? I am referring to the statement of: Gray recorded the base of the ditch as being 4 metres (13 ft) wide. I would very much doubt it if in 1922 he would have used metres, but somebody can look this one up as well. Perhaps he wrote 13 ft to which we could add: about 4 metres? We can write all sort of nonsenses here or make stupid mistakes, but the article really ought to be right, and not tedious to read. LouisBB (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Improving the article

I've got hold of a copy of the first two chapters of Avebury by Mark Gillings. The chapters deal with the monument in general and the history of the site before the henge in more detail. I've got a lot of other commitments on wiki, and while Avebury is clearly a very important site, it's not my top priority so if anyone else can step in in the meantime that would be great. Avebury doesn't cover the most recent excavations, but as it's an overview of the site I thought it would be more useful for the overall article than the latest book which is specifically about the most recent excavations (and is also by Gillings).

One of the above concerns was about over precision. An example of this was the diameter and circumference of the site. According to Gillings, the diameter is 420m. The henge is not perfectly circular, so that diameter will not be uniform, and while he does not explicitly state that it's a rounded figure in the chapters I've got, it sounds like Gillings generalised and the diameter will be roughly the same all the way round. As such, I suggest changing the figure in the article to 420m and removing the diameter.

I also intend to restructure the article, with sections on the site's location; the history before the henge; the history of the henge itself and its layout; and its later history and preservation, in roughly that order. What do people think? The location section could be integrated elsewhere perhaps. Nev1 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your proposed restructuring is sound. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nev1, I think that what you are suggesting is a good initiative. I found it striking that we quote 421 metres diameter for the great circle and Gillings 420. I think the circumference citation and also the data in feet are superfluous. I was always under the impression that heights were quoted in feet, distances in yards or miles.

I feel that carbon dating years should be rounded to the nearest 100 years, especially for a citation range of nearly 800 years, or otherwise at least to the nearest 50 years. Somebody ought to consult the experts on this.

As a by the way I am already consulting English Heritage on Henges. This does not touch the Engish WP too much but what I have found that their Monument Class Description searchable database http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/ has a strict definition for a Henge and it denies this status from Stonehenge, which they say is not a true henge. So far so good, but when you search Google for English Heritage or for henges, Stonehenge is always prominent. It is about time they made their mind up, or to provide better clarity. I have written to the Eng-h to this effect. The enquiry was passed to the experts. LouisBB (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since we've got three people agreeing to the structure, I'll get started soon. As for radiocarbon dates... that can wait for another day. I understand your problem that they appear to be too precise, but at the same time if we start rounding we make them less accurate. It's a while since I read about it, so I'll look into it again.

Do you mind if I ask what you're asking about henges for? Another good source of information is http://www.pastscape.org.uk which is run by English Heritage, although it's probably not as good as the database; it has lots of records about all sorts of historic sites and includes an overview of the history and layout of the sites and details of further sources of information. I of course know of Stonehenge, but I'm not really familiar with the site (I've not even looked at wikipedia's article on it) and the issue about whether it's a henge or not, but it sounds interesting (probably worth mentioning in the Stonehenge article). Even if Stonehenge isn't technically a henge it will always be associated with them and changing the public perception would be a mammoth task. Nev1 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The cited Eng-h mcd database says Stonehenge is not a henge, whereas if you search Google for Eng-h on their website it is classed prominently among the henges and likewise on searching Google for henge, so I think that there is an anomaly, not clarified. (I have queried the missing explanation for the different interpretations) The en-wiki Henge article clearly is an echo of the Eng-h mcd citation, (but enlarged in the mcd) given as See also of the Henge article. LouisBB (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, it's about time this article was moved on from start class - after all, it is a World heritage Site! Could the map be moved up to the top - maybe as part of the infobox? Richerman (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree it ought to be reclassified. I last visited Avebury about 20 years ago and I recall that there was a small museum there, ran by Eng-h. Is it still there? LouisBB (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the infobox doesn't allow for maps, although I think this is something of an oversight and I've left a request on the template talk page. I think the map should be a lot more prominent. I was thinking of putting it in a section on location right after the lead. Nev1 (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, near the top would certainly be more in line with other articles. As for Stonehenge I'm a bit confused as to why the word "henge" originates from Stonehenge but then they decided it wasn't a henge itself. I was thinking of subscribing to the history section of Questia.com for a month or so for references. It seems to have some stuff about Avebury and at just over £6 a month it seems like good value - has anyone tried it? Richerman (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Certainly the map of the other, like articles comes right after the infobox. 2. I don't know if the henge expression came from Stonehenge, or vice-versa. I guess, the mcd definition would have come after both. LouisBB (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The site's new to me but it looks interesting from this. Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Welldone for the reorganisation. 2. If the bolding and capital initials were to highlight proper names then I would have preferred them to be left as they were, rather than making them into red links. Perhaps Gillings would tell us the answer. 3. I have investigated the carbon dating question. The one I remarked on comes from user:Adamsan (25 August 2004), the editor who originally started to enlarge and rewrite the article. I have left a note on his userpage asking him to resolve the question of citation needed. 4. We say (below, just under the edit space) that all encyclopedic content should be verifiable, but where can we start on such a large task?LouisBB (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it's only just begun, this will probably take a few weeks. I'd like to get this to at least GA, but I've got half an eye on FA so I'll include plenty of context. I've left a few hidden comments in the text about stuff that may be out of date or where I think another book will be useful for the article. I'm not really sure what you mean in point four, is there any particular encyclopedic content you're worried about? I'm planning on approaching the article in a chronological order so that I'm not yo-yoing through time and shouldn't be going back inserting text later; that way the prose shouldn't be too choppy. Nev1 (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I can help with the Henge name thing. Stonehenge's name is believed to have originally come from old English Stone and Hang, a reflection of the gallows type appearance of the Trilithons. As is the case with the English language, the meaning of henge then changed (I'm not sure anyone knows when), and early archaeologists used the term henge to apply to a different type of monument. A henge in the modern usage is an earthworks, where a large (roughly circular) ditch is surrounded by a bank. That's pretty much all there is to it - few other features are necessary to meet this definition. Avebury is therefore a henge, an unusual one because of the presence of a stone circle within it - but this is irrelevant to the henge definition. Stonehenge was originally a ditch and bank monument, but with the ditch outside the bank - in a manner more akin to a causewayed enclosure. As a result, despite lending its name to a class of monument, it isn't a 'real' henge. I imagine the confusion at EH is down to marketing types working on the website and assuming it is a henge, or search engine problems seeing as henge is part of the name. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

On radiocarbon dating

Adamson (talk · contribs) is unlikely to be able to shed light on the situation as they've not edited since May 2006, so I'm going to try to explain it and why I think we should use the same ranges in the sources without rounding. If, as is quite probable, my explanation isn't sufficient or my reasons persuasive I recommend we ask for some wider input at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. Here goes:

Radiocarbon dating works by measuring the proportion of radioactive carbon-14 in a sample of organic material. If, for example, there was a stone on top of an organic layer, dating the layer would give you the earliest date at which the stone was put there; if underneath an organic layer, it would give the latest date at which it was deposited. Carbon-14 is produced when nitrogen in the atmosphere is excited by cosmic rays. Radioactive decay happens at a steady rate for large samples, so the theory goes that if you measure the proportion of C14 in a sample you can easily work out how much has decayed. This assumes that the C14 levels in the atmosphere have always been constant.

However, as the level of C14 in the atmosphere hasn't always been constant a calibration curve is required. Now, as most sources gives the date range very accurately (usually nearest 5 years it appears, sometimes the nearest 1) I think we should. For example, (using some figures I'm making up so you won't see this in the article) "the first stones were erected in 3,725–3,640 BC"; as it's a range I think it's imprecise enough not to deceive the reader. Plus, if we start rounding the ranges, it messes with the calibration curve and the probabilities. Because of the calibration curve there could be a higher probability of the date falling at the start of the range than the end. As such, our rounding could be accidentally deceptive. It's quite possible that the archaeologists writing books don't understand this and so round the ranges, but if they are imprecise it's their fault not ours and it's reliably sourced :-) Although admittedly, 5 or 10 years here or there won't matter too much. Nev1 (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My point was exactly what you say in the last sentence. For the average reader this sort of accuracy is not required, and we are being too precise unnecessarily in one case, and imprecise in another, so the reader is already confused, but I think that I may have a neat solution. Adamsan still had mail on his discussion page this year, but he might chose not to reply. The note says: Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. If all dates and dimensions are encyclopedic they ought to be not only verifiable, but verified, and this is the task to which I am referring. I have to excuse myself from checking any library material (quite conveniently, you might say, but justifiably) as I live in France. LouisBB (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Attention from an expert

Although my main interest is Stonehenge (I used to work in that part of the WHS), I know a fair bit about Avebury and the history of the entire area. There are definitely eminent archaeologists far better qualified than I, but I don't know if any of them are on Wikipedia! I'd be happy to review technical parts of the article for you all, and I'd love to get writing on it, but I am pushed for free time over the summer though, so it'll be a while before I can start making major contributions. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Any time is good. —BillC ^talk 19:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Progress

I think the first two sections (location and environment and before the henge) are essentially complete and it would be good if someone could read over them to see how they scan. Any comments would be useful. Is more detail needed, are dates missing, or is there too much tangential information? Should the neighbouring monuments be mentioned more (the English Heritage book certainly devotes a lot of space to them in a book called Avebury) or is the balance of focussing on the henge within the context of the local area ok? Bear in mind when reading the sections that there should be a lot of context as the eventual intention is to make this article a Featured Article.

I've got the English Heritage book on Avebury at the moment, but not the Pollard & Gillings book, and while it has some good information on the environment, the relation with the surrounding area, and later investigations, but when talking about the actual henge it infuriatingly leaves out dates of the construction phases. So although I had intended to approach this article chronologically, with the book I have available at the moment, it might be a good idea to skip to the later history of the site and return to the details of the henge later. Unfortunately, this might make things a little disjointed (which is why I had intended to approach the article chronologically) and leaves the most important section under-developed. Nev1 (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a read later tonight. After that I'm away for a week I'm afraid. I think the EH book (which I also have at the mo) was written at a time when the dates were up in the air. When I get back I'll have a good look through Burl and see what I can do. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a good start. I'd make mention of Windmill Hill in the Before the henge section as well though. I think it's important to keep the context of the henge in it's surrounding environment as clear as possible. Although this article is about the henge, it was part of the whole complex of monuments that make up the WHS, and wasn't an isolated feature within them. It's context within the other monuments is all important.

On a slightly different subject, I've been wondering about the possibility of renanming this article "Avebury Henge". More and more literature refers to the circle this way, to separate it from the wider landscape. As you point out, the EH book "Avebury" concerns itself with the whole ritual landscape, not just the henge. When people talk about Avebury they are usually talking about the area, when referring to the main circle they use henge or ring. Anyway, just a thought. See you in a week Ranger Steve (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is already a redirect from Avebury Henge perhaps just mentioning the name in the intro is enough Zacherystaylor (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good point about Windmill Hill and the area in general, and I'll add in more about Avebury in relation to the local monuments.

As for renaming, I'm not sure. There's a good argument to move the article to Avebury henge as that is what the article covers as opposed to the Avebury area which is what the EH book covers, but the Gillings and Pollard books seemed to focus on the henge, although the surroundings were of course mentioned for context. Since academic texts use "Avebry" to refer to a few things, perhaps the way to approach it is to think about what the reader will expect. I would think that most readers who've heard of Avebury will expect this article to be about the henge, so perhaps it's not necessary to move the article to a more specific title? Nev1 (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

copyedit

I've been doing some copyediting (which I hope looks ok) but the following bit of text is a bit unclear

It is in the centre of a collection of Neolithic and early Bronze Age monuments.[4] Avebury is part of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site. The monument is part of a Neolithic and Bronze Age landscape and are preserved for the information they provide regarding people's relationship with the prehistoric landscape.

I intend to change it to the following, but would like to check first that this is what was meant:

Avebury lies at the centre of a collection of Neolithic and early Bronze Age monuments, collectively known as the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site. The monuments are preserved as part of a Neolithic and Bronze Age landscape for the information they provide regarding prehistoric people's relationship with the landscape.

Your suggestion is much better and is what's intended. Reading my own phrasing again, it was pretty poor. Nev1 (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Also under "Construction" it says:

These types of monument are not exclusive to the area; for example: Stonehenge features the same monument types, and in Dorset there is a henge on the edge of Dorchester and nearby a causewayed enclosure at Maiden Castle

Hasn't it been established earlier that Stonehenge is in the same area?

Richerman (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Although the World Heritage Site groups Stonehenge and Avebruy together, and they were probably linked, the English Heritage book I'm reading at the moment describes the monuments associated with the two main sites as essentially two separate groups. Nev1 (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I often find that when I read back my own text a day or so later it doesn't look so good. It's much easier to tweak someone else's hard work :) Richerman (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've found that too. I think sometimes I must write something, know it's lacklustre but think I'll return to it later but forget. Ranger Steve's already highlighted in the above section that more info is needed on Avebury's relation to the surrounding area, so since this is a subject to Avebury's grouping with Stonehenge, I'll try to address it in the next few days. Nev1 (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Stonehenge and Avebury were co-inscribed in 1986 as a joint WHS, but they are 2 distinct sites and aren't joined. Avebury Henge sits at the centre of a cluster of monuments, Stonehenge sits at the centre of another. Although there are other monuments in the 20 miles between these 2 sites, they are not as dense as these 2 groups. I'd suggest saying something like "Avebury Henge sits at the centre of a group of monuments... The area was inscribed as a WHS in a co-listing with the nearby monuments at Stonehenge in 1986." or something like that, just to clarify that Stonehenge, although associated, is some distance away. I only mention it because the quotes above it might apppear that Avebury Henge sits at the centre of a cluster of monuments that also includes Stonehenge.

On another note, I'm dying to get rid of the ref to Flagstones and Stonehenge in the Monument Section, they aren't comparable monuments at all. Will work on that when I get back to my books next week! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Epicentre of the crop circle phenomenon

Maybe it worth mentioning that most crop circles are located near Avebury. Here is the study: http://www.siue.edu/GEOGRAPHY/ONLINE/Northcote06.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varnav (talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Broadly, yes, I think it's worth mentioning. We should perhaps link here our discussion on this very point at Talk:Silbury Hill. Moonraker2 (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, one of the Gillings books mentions the crop circles as a curiosity, so I think there's no harm in mentioning it in the article, as long as it's not given too much weight. It's one of the little details which can make an article interesting. Nev1 (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not important for this article are crop circles hoaxes or message from aliens. It's important that they do exist, and Avebury is definitely is the epicenter of this phenomenon. Someone (with native english unlike me ;) plz add this info. --Varnav (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in a rather selective quote, it's: "Avebury and high population density areas across England, particularly in the south. Crop circles are also shown to be aligned with some of England's principal motorways. These findings cast doubt on paranormal theories". And, perhaps, on the suggestion that Avebury is any sort of epicentre. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Avebury is both the mode and median centre of the crop circle data set in 2002. So what explains Avebury as the epicentre of the crop circle phenomenon? The Avebury cluster is mostly found in an area of very low population density (less than 1.47 people per hectare, and between 40-50km from the nearest major population centre). The Avebury cluster is also located away from the main motorways. So it would seem that population and accessibility factors are not relevant. What needs to be considered, however, are cultural heritage factors. - pages 5 and 6. --Varnav (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You may see at least three here at Wikimapia --77.37.209.230 (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

/* External links */ Davidjohnberlin (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It does seem that some people are over-zealous about removing external links. Everybody hates spam (except spammers) and many are averse to websites containing any kind of advertising. However, it seems that external links to excellent knowledge resources are often removed on a whim.

While it is understood that "Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion", and that "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority" are to be avoided, I believe that individual links should be examined for their merits and usefulness before being expunged.

In the case of Avebury, I find it regrettable, for example, that the link to the website "Avebury, a present from the past" was deleted because somebody deemed it a "fansite". For anybody who is interested in Avebury, this website is a goldmine and more informative than many of the other webites or literature listed. While obviously an enthusiast rather than a professional/academic, I find the author Pete Roberts′ site a unique, reliable and valuable contribution to the study of the subject, and at least as authoritative as many books and articles I have read.Davidjohnberlin (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Promoting your own website on Wikipedia, as you have done on this and other articles, is a conflict of interest and is unacceptable. The fact that you think your own website is "a goldmine" is the very reason why the conflict of interest policy exists. If somebody else believes the link should stay then they can add it - but it could still be subject to deletion (as I just did once again) if it fails any of the criteria at WP:ELNO. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few websites run by "fans" of Avebury and Megalithic Britain generally and some are much better than the one put forward by Davidjohnberlin. I would refer for example to the History of Avebury page on the deleted site that begins "We are currently working on the history of Avebury." (!) It would appear you have some work to do David. I agree that the "Avebury, a present from the past" is a very good site and considerably better than the one at issue now. Perhaps that link could go back in. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the "present from the past" website has grown into a very nice site - not least because it now has a facsimile copy of Stukely's book. It certainly seems to pass the test of the very first of the criteria at WP:ELNO "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." I wouldn't have any objection to it being added. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've added it - can't see anything in A Present from the Past to say who is behind it (a single un-named email address is the only contact) - it does carry one or two ads but not much. Probably the best "fansite" out there, although of course Julian Cope's is also very good, just not Avebury-specific and one has to accept a certain amount of zanyness. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Locus genitive

Shouldn't this be Genus loci? Just asking, as my last Latin lesson was many years ago. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I copied it straight from the source so.... I assume they are right? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for the reply. Do you want to check again? [4] --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. It's page 42, BTW.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The stones

What material are the stones? An exhibit in the museum says they are sandstone, but there seemed to be igneous rock in some of the stones. Are they local, or were they transported from somewhere else?

Danensis (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Location

Avebury is not on the Berkshire Downs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.62.232.103 (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Berkshire Downs removed from 'Location and environment' section. Wire723 (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Avebury/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Overprecision== I have already commented on this on the discussion page, but it should be taken further. We are not here to baffle the reader with numbers unnecessarily. The range quotation of radiocarbon dating is not even scientific unless it is quoted in statistical terms. Ask a statistician what he thinks about it! LouisBB (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 08:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)