Talk:Stoney Littleton Long Barrow

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 13:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stoney Littleton Long Barrow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dudley Miles (talk · contribs) 12:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I will take this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "was scheduled as an ancient monument in 1882." I checked this as I thought it must be and error but I was wrong. According to Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882 it was one of the 26 English monuments listed in the original Act. Worth mentioning?

• Thank you I was not aware of that. Now added.— Rod ^talk 16:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The chambered long barrow was constructed during the Neolithic" This confused me as I thought at first you meant this barrow. I think "Chambered long barrows were constructed during the Neolithic" would be clearer.

• Changed.— Rod ^talk 16:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The site was restored in 1858 by Mr T. R. Joliffe." The source says the mound, which is clearer. Also how do you know Joliffe was male? The source does not say so.

• His first names were Thomas Robert so I made an assumption that he was male. In his writing he is always known as "T.R." but I can add the full names if that would be helpful?— Rod ^talk 16:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I would say Thomas Joliffe. The old rule was that you put Mr when someone was alive, and I once read an academic remark that he had found out about a colleague's death when he saw him referred to without the Mr. That rule has probably gone by the wayside but Mr still sounds a bit stilted to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• That is not a rule I've heard of, but it was the style in academic journals etc only to use initials until fairly recently. (I have also heard discussion about reintroducing the format as a way of addressing gener bias in publications). Thomas added.— Rod ^talk 18:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Some of the artefacts from the excavations are in the Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery." According to Pastscape bones as well but 'History and Research says they have been lost. Not sure how to deal with this unless you can find out from the museum.

• They are not included in the part of their collection accessible online.— Rod ^talk 16:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• You could wikilink Timothy Darvill to shown he is an RS source. Also you are inconsistent Tim or Timothy.

• Done. It says Tim here and Timothy here, but I agree it is the same person and have made it consistent.— Rod ^talk 16:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• How do you know 'Stones of England' is RS? Also Megalithic Portal which seems to be composed (like Wikipedia) of contributions by anonymous contributors.

• Both replaced/removed.— Rod ^talk 16:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I would prefer the last photo of the interior on the right as where it is on the left pushes the References section over which looks ugly.

• Moved.— Rod ^talk 16:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think there should be a paragraph on location and access.

• I've added a short paragraph, but I couldn't think of or find much - what else do you think would be useful?— Rod ^talk 17:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• "via a stile a footpath from the south." sounds ungrammatical and vague to me. I would add by a footpath from a car park at Stoney Littleton Farm as in the Digital Digging site. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• My error - grammar corrected & car park added.— Rod ^talk 18:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Your usual high standard. I will put it on hold now. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. Do you think your concerns have been addressed?— Rod ^talk 17:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have passed it now. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Over at the GAN of Glastonbury Lake Village, Rod asked for advice regarding this article on the basis of my experience with the Coldrum Long Barrow article, and I thought it best if I post my thoughts here, where a range of editors could (potentially) make note of them and use them. So here are just a few thoughts: the article could do with expansion using academic archaeological sources. At present the article relies largely on websites and tourist books, however the best, and most detailed sources, are typically going to be research articles published in peer-reviewed journals, along with scholarly tomes (although a little dated, Glyn Daniel's book on chambered tombs in Britain remains a keystone for the subject). Accessing those will often be difficult, but I do think that they are necessary to produce a top notch article that will reach FA status. A second point that I would advise is that the article provide some greater contextual background about Early Neolithic Somerset, the chambered tomb tradition, and the Cotswold-Severn tradition specifically. Some of this could be directly copy-and-pasted from the Coldrum Long Barrow article without problem, but most of it will involve greater in-depth reading of various published academic sources. A third point that I would raise is that there is surely going to be folklore surrounding the site, and that is something that will be relevant for inclusion. I hope that this is of some help, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Over at Glyn Daniel I can see The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of France (1960), but where is his "book on chambered tombs in Britain"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Daniel, Glynn E. (1950). The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press." It has since been reprinted, so copies are available for purchase, and will hopefully be available through local libraries; any good univerity archaeology library should have a copy too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Might even be a good addition to his article! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Even 2nd hand the 2013 edition is £20.00+ on amazon and the 1950 edition is £30.00+! Other local articles which might benefit include Fairy Toot.— Rod ^talk 21:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a sad state of affairs but for an academic book, that's probably a bargain. Bear in mind that most newly published academic books released in the UK today range from £50-130 RRP, with most falling into the £80-100 range. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"'ere mate, I 'ad that toot fairy in the back of me cab the uvver night... 'e wanted a fare to somewhere way beyond Brentford. Strike a light!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. As previously discussed I am never sure how much "background context" to include. I have several history books on the Somerset area (see User:Rodw/Books) but some of the more specialist sources are, as you say, elusive on occasion. If you felt like adding in relevant material from sources you have that would be great.— Rod ^talk 21:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue regarding background context is always a juggling act, but a paragraph or two providing a decent background overview is probably appropriate. Not too much, not too little. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Alignment of the passage.

I recently visited the barrow, and, sitting inside with my back to the end wall, took a bearing with a hand compass on the lighted entrance. I can confirm that the alignment is 137degrees +/-2 deg, which is very roughly that of the midwinter sunrise (about 130deg). However, the azimuth is actually too large (i.e. too far to the south) for the rising sun ever to appear (or to have appeared) in this direction. There is, in any case, no possibility of the sun ever shining into the passage since the ground outside rises quite steeply in the projected direction of the passage, placing the viewline well below the horizon. The statement that the sun can shine into the passage is therefore incorrect and fanciful: "The passage and entrance are aligned so that sun would enter at sunrise during the midwinter." Moreover, it is a misrepresentation of the reference, which merely states that the passage and entrance are aligned upon the midwinter sunrise (which is trueish in a very imprecise sense). Sadly this is not a Somerset Newgrange. G4oep

Thanks for your comment (and I hope you enjoyed your visit). The rising ground outside the entrance may have changed since it was built but, accepting your main premise, how would you suggest the current wording "The passage and entrance are aligned so that sun would enter at sunrise during the midwinter." should be changed to more accurately reflect reality (and the source cited)?— Rod ^talk 16:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we can persuade you to spend a year living inside the barrow and reporting back on how it aligns with star constellations, on a monthly basis? But where does that leave our seeming "WP:RS" 2008 paper by Jodie Lewis in the Proceedings of the Bristol Spelaeological Society? Simply over-ruled by an unsupported WP:OR anecdote? I don't doubt your enlightening report, G4oep, nor your motives, but just asking a boring policy question. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the comments. Yes - I enjoyed the visit very much - it's a super site. A couple of responses -

1) If anyone cares to visit the site it will be immediately clear that the hillside rises considerably in the projected direction of the passage, that my comment about the horizon is incontovertible, and must have been true at the time that the barrow was built.

2) Re the Jodie Lewis reference, I comment on it above. The first paragraph of the paper's introduction merely states that the passage and entrance are 'aligned upon the midwinter sunrise', and I have found this to be roughly true. I have not found in the paper any statement that the sun ever shines, or could have shone into the passage. The main article therefore misrepresents the reference unless I have missed something in it. Where does the paper state that the sun can shine into the passage ?

3) Is it possible to mention that the passage and chambers are examples of corbelled vaults ? There are not many places where you can just walk in and see one.

4) It interests me that my comments have evoked a response. I live in Bristol (and was once a member of the UB Speleo Soc), and would very much like to meet people who are interested in surveying nearby monuments. Here is a write-up on a project I have recently undertaken... http://g4oep.netii.net/archaeoastronomy/grey%20hill.html Please contact me via my web-site if you can suggest similar projects, or would like to collaborate on something of this kind... g4oep

Hi g4eop. Thanks for the clarification. It might be much easier for all if you created a Wikipedia account, from which you could edit? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Images

I think the images recently added are very good. Perhaps better than the existing very dark "File:Chamber of Stoney Littleton Long Barrow.jpg" But, given the article has been at WP:GA status since February 2015, might it be better to group them in a gallery? There may currently be some issues with text MOS:SANDWICHING. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)