Talk:Silbury Hill

West Dakota Prize

---

---

A Winner of the September 2005 West Dakota Prize

This entry, one of an unprecedented 52, has won the September 2005 West Dakota Prize, awarded for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence.

---

---

Base of the monument

"The base of the monument is 167 m (550 ft) in diameter and perfectly round"

Going by the pictures on here, the base of the monument certainly isn't 'perfectly round'. Perhaps this needs to be ammended. - Bill 11/05/07 (UK) 09.40am

Pyramid

Could you compare it to the Pyramids of Gizeh? Which is bigger?

Well, this one is small in comparsion. The hill is about 40 metres high, the largest pyramids are about three times taller. You can fit something like 15 "hills" inside a pyramid, (approx, the sides of the pyramids are much steeper than the hillsides so it is a little hard to estimate). // Solkoll 23:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

2nd pic

These are NOT positive crop marks: they are two crop circles made in a field which has since been harvested. Positive crop marks are caused by underground features (ditches, walls etc); crop circles are caused above ground by drunken young farmers or Army types on secret night-time missions, or crazed hippies. Take your pick. 81.157.196.251 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Scientific theories"

Moses Cotsworth is given pride of place in this section, but his theory isn't referenced. I'm guessing this came from his 1904 book The Rational Almanac: tracing the evolution of modern almanacs from ancient ideas of time, and suggesting improvements ... 180 illustrations explaining the mystery of the Pyramids, etc but this isn't a mainstream work. Cotsworth was a railway accounts clerk who sought to make his work easier by having the year "in all Nations" divided into months of equal length to avoid his having to work late balancing "the ever-changing differences between monthly totals for Income and Expenditure".[1] Can anyone provide more, or perhaps we should expand the section so that it doesn't rely so heavily on Cotsworth? --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Cotsworth removed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Step?

In the section on scientific theories, there's suddenly mention of a step just below the summit which, as as an invisible editing note points out, hasn't been mentioned at all prior to this. As this step appears to be pretty integral to Devereux' theory (and possibly others), the article would definitely benefit greatly from information about this step being woven into the description of the hill: probably in paragraph two of the "Structure" section. I don't have any source material to attempt a description of the step or I'd add this info myself ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Done or, at least started. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work - that now hangs together much better :-) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Crop circles!

There are many crop circles around Silbury hill and Avebury. You may see at least three here: http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=51.416231&lon=-1.8545008&z=15&l=1&m=b

And there are many in database:

http://www.x-cosmos.it/cropcircles/

I think it worth mentioning.

--Varnav (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The topic has a brief mention at "2nd pic" above: "caused... by drunken young farmers or Army types on secret night-time missions, or crazed hippies". What's the relevance, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the better study: http://www.siue.edu/GEOGRAPHY/ONLINE/Northcote06.pdf But according to it the epicentre is actually Avebury, not Silbury Hill.

--Varnav (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Followed the link (thanks) and skim-read, but couldn't find any mention of Silbury.--Old Moonraker (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I also couldn't find any mention in that of Silbury, but the article has a lot to say about Avebury being the epicentre of English crop circles. Silbury, of course, is merely a hill within the parish of Avebury.

For me, these crop circles are mostly hocus pocus, but a very few of them do seem to raise difficult questions. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the pdf suggest mundane reasons for Avebury & crop circles? "these crop circles were influenced in their placement by intentional factors such as proximity to roads, population centres and cultural heritage areas, and not by postulated (and unsubstantiated) natural phenomena such as plasma vortices." Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, it doesn't suggest mundane reasons. It contends that, as yet unknown natural causes are unlikely, but goes on to say "crop circles are a form of symbolic art or sign language, and as such, their purpose is to be "read" or appreciated by an audience. It is contended that this will be the case regardless of whether crop circles are "hoaxes" produced by individuals or are created by some other form of intelligence." That will be taken as positive by both sides of the debate. Richerman (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not important in the article what makes crop circles - hoaxers or UFOs. But Avebury is the epicentre, not Silbury hill, so, we discuss the topic here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varnav (talk • contribs) 10:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

2002 digging team leader

This recent WP:AGF edit removed "Fachtna McAvoy" as possible vandalism. It is however true (albeit possibly WP:COI, as McAvoy himself seems to have posted the entry) and verifiable from English Heritage's web page. I would restore the deletion, but would welcome views on subject's notability first. --Old Moonraker (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

These may help: [2] and [3]. That looks like enough. --Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was Jim Leary, but this blog suggests he replaced McAvoy early on [4] - the recent EH book is of course by Leary and Field and doesn't mention McAvoy, although it does talk about other people on the project. Perhaps reading between the lines there was some falling out? It would be interesting to know, but at the moment, the weight of sourcing isn't particularly pointing to it not being Jim Leary. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure when EH made her redundant - I found a page where she was appealing her redundancy when I searched, but can't recall dates. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

FMcA has posted an exhaustive and seemingly even-handed account (with a few interesting pictures) here. Gives the date of his removal from the project, June 2007, but doesn't help with the point at issue: whether or not to restore his name to the article. For me his prominent inclusion on the EH web page seems indicative. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Couple of general points on this. One is that at present, the article does not reflect the latest thinking in any depth - the Leary/Field book for example carries quite a number of scientifically plausible assertions that directly contradict previous widely held views and introduce new concepts and discoveries. So this needs writing up. Second point is that we should mention Leary as well in the article - he has the book and his name all over everything, along with Field. Against this backdrop there wouldn't be an objection to having User Fachtna McAvoy's edit in, but we should be wary as to what is said and the source you raise Old Moonraker, as there appear to be possible legal issues to do with a redundancy dispute in some of it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi - just to say that there was a redundancy dispute (my claim for unfair dismissal against English Heritage) but legal proceedings were concluded in Dec 2010.Fachtna mcavoy (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

All done? OK, the consensus => restoring the edit, so I'll do that. Field has just published in British Archaeology a summary of the latest thinking; I looked at this quickly when it came out and didn't find anything greatly at odds with the WP piece. I'll look at it again in the light of the points (above) by User:Jamesinderbyshire, unless anybody beats me to it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't have the widely discredited Dames under "Scientific Theories" for starters, but my reading of the Leary/Field book which finished a couple of months ago is that the Skanska/EH work did challenge quite a few old notions. I will try dropping some lines in on it in a bit and see what you think. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for removing content without noticing it was being discussed here. My reasoning was two fold, the reference clearly states there were many others involved.."Project was managed by Fachtna McAvoy between 2000 and 13th September 2007. From the 15th of June 2007 the archaeological work was directed by Jim Leary. Sarah May was the Project Manager between September 2007 and November 2008, and Brian Kerr was the Project Executive during this period. After November 2008 Jim Leary took over Project Management and Sarah May became the Project Executive. The Silbury Hill Conservation Project was under the overall project management of Rob Harding during the whole period and Amanda Chadburn was the Inspector for Ancient Monuments."

He has a clear conflict of interest, fair enough to add details but to just add his own name seems a bit unfair when "English Heritage" would suffice. Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that I do not see a 'conflict of interest' here. The reference is specifically to the archaeological fieldwork carried out at Silbury Hill in 2002. At this time, as throughout the project, Amanda Chadburn was the Inspector of Ancient Monuments and Rob Harding was the overall Project Manager.FachtnaFachtna mcavoy (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a conflict of interest as such (other than for you personally in requesting the edit Fachtna) - the issue is one of balance, eg, how notable one leading name is compared to others. The Leary and Field book is one source of notability. I checked again more carefully and it does acknowledge McAvoy as excavation manager from 2000-7. It gives equal weight to a longish list of others though, including some whom Teapot does not list above. A bit tricky this one, as if we mention one, we should really give a list. It might be undue weight to list you specially Fachtna but if we do, we will need to list others. We also need to consider what is notable. I am not quite clear about the role of "excavation manager" within the scheme of things and perhaps others can comment on this. Is the "excavation manager" a scientific role or more like a project manager? If the latter, I would think it's not as notable to the public as scientists/instigators, lead academics, etc. Comments? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is quite sufficient to say "As part of this remedial work English Heritage excavated two further small trenches" It does not need to mention specific people, especially those who are demanding to be mentioned. If Fachtna Mcavoy was notable enough to have his own article it might be worth considering but until then it would be more neutral to NOT include his name.Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC

Hello - I would like to point out that I am not 'demanding' anything and also that a properly neutral stance and consistent approach would see the replacement of 'Rob Harding' with 'English Heritage' - retaining the reference to the statement of roles and responsibilities provided on the English Heritage website.Fachtna mcavoy (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Still not clear how important or otherwise the excavation manager is. If v. important, then notwithstanding that he's asking for the edit, it would be notable enough to NPOV'ley include. If of just moderate importance, I agree NOT. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It just looks like blatant self promotion to me with absolutely no merit.Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It has of course been noted above (and I entirely agree) that the article needs to be updated in any case to include information contained in the book 'The Story of Silbury Hill' by David Field and Jim Leary which was published last year by English Heritage. For information the management/direction of the archaeological element of the Silbury Hill Conservation Project was only divided between a site/excavation manager (Jim Leary) and a Project Manager after I had been dismissed from and thereafter excluded from Silbury itself in June 2007.fachtnaFachtna mcavoy (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Teapotgeorge, this is blatant self promotion and a clear conflict of interest. I don't believe that any consensus exists to keep the name in the article - which as currently written implies that this individual was the sole excavator. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

We have lost a link to useful material

This edit was rightly reverted, citing completely valid concerns over WP:COI. However parts of the external site, which do not deal with the personal circumstances of the contributor, contain useful material. Would it be in order if another, disinterested editor restored the more closely targeted link? Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I would advise not to add it, the major purpose of the sites content is another agenda entirely and Wikipedia should not really be involved in his personal disputes.Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In the past when someone has posted a clear COI link I have deleted it, but left it in place if someone else other than the site owner subsequently posted it for good reason. However in this case I agree, no soapboxing however useful some of the content might seem to be. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 17:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a very good site indeed and well worth linking to. We can simply link to the homepage or a different page from the one extolling Fachtna's virtues. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What is actually work linking to? All I see (from the "Home" link down) is a set of grievances that an employee has against his management and colleagues. It's your archetypal "i've been hard done by so I'm going to have my say" site. Under WP:ELNO it has absolutely no place on Wikipedia. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 18:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello - the objectivity and neutrality of the contributors to wikipedia is very impressive but I think that the above comment is a little unfair. I am not 'trying to have my say' and do not do so on the website. The majority of the website content simply reproduces the documentation which I submitted to English Heritage setting out my concerns about the way I had been treated and the documentation in which English Heritage delivered its response.Fachtna mcavoy (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I was thinking of another site - just checked it out and you are correct Simple Bob, it's a personal grievance site with lots of legal issues in it. I take the above comment back - correct not to link to it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

James, you have whetted our curiosity now—what was the "very good site indeed and well worth linking to"? --08:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A recent re-shuffle of a couple of paragraphs, now reverted, helped me pick up James's thread. My last question was unnecessary, and my original question has been decisively answered. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

An IP editor has added Leary & Field—thanks—but if the book is as significant as Jamesinderbyshire suggests should there be some changes to the article, referenced to their findings? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nick Thomas

Professor Nicholas Thomas, Director of Cambridge University's Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and professor of historical anthropology.[5]. Dougweller (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahem, thank you. Not that clear on his website. He must be a very modest chap. Would his site be seen as WP:SPS? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Or not? Would the real Prof Nick Thomas please stand up? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, was I wrong and many apologies. I've removed this. See [6] - this isn't significant enough a view for the article. Many many apologies, I should looked at the website more carefully - I know who Professor Thomas is and jumped to conclusions. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I was a bit surprised by seeing Rudolf the Red-Nosed Archaeologist, I must admit. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Note to (Not-Professor) Nick: I'm sure your suggestion is perfectly serious and looks perfectly reasonable to me. It's just that your website, as it's your own self-published research, counts as a WP:SPS or "self-published source" and thus is not considered as a WP:RS. So, sorry that your suggestion can't be added yet. Hope you understand. Martinevans123 (talk)

Height

The lede gives the height as 39.3m; the body gives it as 40m. These are from different sources, both apparently good and very close in time. Over to experts. Wikiain (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

40m can be approximation of 39.3m, but what do you do with 30m which is the height in English Heritage site, which runs the place? אביהו (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Size of Roman village

I have removed the comparison of the size of the Roman village to a multiple of football pitches as a football pitch is neither standardised or an internationally recognised unit of measurement. The Reuters article referenced doesn't give a size for the village. If anyone has a source for the size of the village in hectares or square metres, please add it. --Graham Phillips 110 (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Menkaure

It's a real stretch equating Silbury with that pyramid. There is probably a Mesoamerican pyramid that is a better comparison. 99.229.34.174 (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Silbury Hill is larger by volume than the pyramid of Menkaure, though Menkaure is taller. Menkaure was built around 2500 BC and Silbury Hill around 2400 BC. Ario1234 (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)