From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is The Following A Valid Assumption These Days?[edit]

"The construction of large monuments such as those at Avebury indicates that a stable agrarian economy had developed in Britain by around 4000–3500 BCE. The people who built them had to be secure enough to spend time on such non-essential activities." Considering that now we have Gobekli Tepe which appears to predate settlement and agriculture, can we state this with such confidence? I'm not saying this assertion is wrong, just that we can't be so sure of it being right any more. (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Broken infobox image[edit]

Anyone have any idea what's going on with the infobox image? It's calling files from Wikidata, but obviously too many, and not displaying any image at all... Simon Burchell (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

An editor reverted the infobox to a working version today. Wire723 (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Simon Burchell (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


It says in the section "Henge" that: "The Avebury monument is a henge, a type of monument consisting of a large circular bank with an internal ditch. The henge is not perfectly circular and measures over 1,000 metres (1,090 yd) in circumference.[23]" End quote. Not clear whether this is the outside diameter of the bank, or the diameter of the central flat area. The large stone circle is at the edge of the central flat area. Other sources give the diameter of the Avebury stone circle as 330 m (National Trust) or the diameter of the henge as 347.4 m (Caroline Malone, "Neolithic Britain and Ireland", p. 172), which is clearly inconsistent with a diameter for the henge of 1000 m, whichever way it is measured. Possibly there is an error introduced here as 330 m is pretty close to 1000 feet, so the original source might say 1000 feet diameter? I don't have a copy to look up. Aarghdvaark (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

OK made change and gave C. Malone as ref. Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
And then found this statement "Burl speculates that it was likely built for defensive purposes.[25]" Is this a joke? The one thing clear about a henge is it is not defensive. I'm now thinking that this is simply a subtle form of vandalism, so now deleting anything referencing Burl as vandalism, given that was also the reference used to support the incorrect diameter of the henge too. Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The previous wording you quote was circumference so that is consistent with the diameter mentioned. The ratio would be pi for a circle. I agree henges - with the ditch inside - are not defensive but calling it vandalism is a bit strong! Burl seems to a well respected archaeologist and parts of the book quoted are available on Google Books. I don't see any reference to defence on pages 197 or 199 but 198 is not available. On the dimensions, those pages say the ditch encloses 10.5 ha and measures 368 m across. Cavrdg (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out circumference not diameter. My mistake, but I think diameter is a more useful metric than circumference (unless working out man-hours of ditch digging etc.)? I wasn't thinking Burl was a vandal, but someone had used his name to infiltrate the idea that a henge was defensive. I think the henge section is now OK as it is? Thanks again. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)