Talk:Durrington Walls

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Durrington Walls article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Museums Low‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiltshire Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WiltshireWikipedia:WikiProject WiltshireTemplate:WikiProject WiltshireWiltshire
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

World Heritage Sites

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Megalith

I've created a new template for megalithic sites, Template:Megalith, as used on Pikestones and Round Loaf. Some instructions on the template talk page, to show how to use it. Cheers! --PopUpPirate 13:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marden henge is bigger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.82.94 (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Wainwright

Who is he? The Green Man 20:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't think we have a wikipage on him yet, but you can find out a bit about him here. Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Village

Saw the Channel 4 documentary on the excavations in 2007. The article still doesn't reflect the discoveries that were made nearly 3 years ago, which is a shame, given the site's importance and the effort that had been put into the article. I could try to update, but I would have to use online reports. Be better if someone with better access could have a go. Folks at 137 (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article's on my list of things to do... one day. When I wrote it I wasn't so aware of referencing (although I can vouch all the info has come from the bibliography), so I really need to go through it and drag it up to better quality I think. It does mention the village, but only briefly. I do want to expand that too when I get the chance.... Real Life is a bit hectic at the moment though! Ranger Steve (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it promotional in archaeological articles to mention the university leading an excavation?

Please see Wikipedia talk: What Wikipedia is not#Is it promotional in archaeological articles to mention the university leading an excavation?. Doug Weller (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, where universities were not (traditionally) particularly "commercial" entities, probably not, and I think that's the relevant standard for a UK site. How to apply that for (say) a US institution leading excavations in Egypt, funded by a Malaysian magnate ... not so clear. Fortunately the question of where the finds end up has been settled (host country, with past finds to be repatriated ASAP).

Who would the university be promoting to? Alumni? well, they probably knew about it while it was going on (if they're likely to be influenced by a particular project) ; "investors" (should have done their "due diligence" already) ; future students (again, if they're likely to be influenced, they probably know already - both undergraduate and graduate students). I just don't see it as a relevant question. The tradition in citing authors in the formal literature has included the author's affiliation (institution) since the mid-19th century (some regional variation on that). Probably since the population of "science" reached a point that "Joe Bloggs" was not sufficient to distinguish between the Joe in Land's End or the Joe in John o'Groats.

AKarley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the new results raised at the official blog

This[1] is very interesting. Some of the new questions raised:

the completion, or not, of the timber circle

if the posts were lifted vertically how they did this, and why?

the dating of raising and dismantling these posts (we await radiocarbon dates for the very handy antler in the posthole fill and the scapula at the bottom of the posthole for this)

the idea that a decision was made to replace the timber circle (complete or not) with a great henge monument

what happened to the timber posts after they were removed? Doug Weller talk 09:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Words like "new" quickly become meaningless and shouldn't be used, imo. The official blog is now 4 years old, as of Mar 2022.FangoFuficius (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Durrington Walls. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119153004/http://www.natgeotv.com/stonehenge to http://www.natgeotv.com/stonehenge

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Durrington Walls. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228002127/http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/research/stonehenge/index.html to http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/research/stonehenge/index.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the new pits as of 2020/2021

Should a name be found for this find? My view is that the pits are too irregularly spaced and two few to constitute a monument - this is just an archaeologist's wishful thinking. Durrington Walls were a village and the pits are more or less the same distance from it. I think flint prospecting (how do they compare with Grimes Graves?) should be added to the theories. FangoFuficius (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why find a new name? They are pits, regardless of whether they were carved by water erosion, or small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. The comparison with various undisputed flint mining pits in the area is made in the formal publications (if the journalists don't mention it, that's their problem. Find a better journalist.) such as Gaffney.etal.2020.

Whether they're one monument, or two, or one monument with two "bosses" (in the setting out phase) remains somewhat a question, and people are still discussing it. The relative accuracy of the northern arc compared to the southern arc is a frequently-remarked point, but to my eye, the southern arc also appears to have a different centre of curvature to the northern one, a little to the WSW of Woodhenge, rather than near the centre of the Durrington Walls henge. But the presence of several similarly-distanced pits (well, geophysical anomalies) on the W side of the group does seem to unite the two groups into one structure, even if possibly with multiple crews.

Rather than obsessing over terminology for something of indeterminate completeness, I'd put effort into surveying "un-developed" areas which may be part of the larger structure. Of course, there may not be any undeveloped areas. That's always a potential problem with archaeology. Excavating one of the pits fully (which would include comprehensive shoring, because they're deep) to compare it with the excavated flint mines would be good. From what I understand of the remote sensing technologies used, they're not going to be very sensitive to tunnels more than a few metres below ground surface.

AKarley (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about terminology (can one question be an obsession?) - it's about following a new story and referring to it succinctly, since Stonehenge and its vicinity are riddled with pits and postholes. If you were surveying out from Durrington Walls in search of flint, one strategy might be to walk from the centre 1000 paces in different directions and dig. Calling it a structure is romance. Pyramidiots don't interest me. I prefer the prosaic. FangoFuficius (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not on us to find a name for the features. If the academic reports use one we can use that, or if the media come up with something there's a case for using that too. But we should reflect what they say, rather than inventing a name ourselves. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

etymology

I would move the Etymology section, or at least most of it, to Durrington, Wiltshire, the village from which the site inherits its name. —Tamfang (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]