Talk:Woodhenge

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FilmFanatic8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I hope people realise that Woodhenge is now Concretehenge, as all the wooden posts have been replaced with ugly concrete cylinders with garishly painted tops. Lady BlahDeBlah 18:29, 15 July 2006 (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)

Counting The Posts

There was, and possibly still is, a story that if one counted the posts in the outer circle by going round clockwise, one arrived at a different number from that obtained by going round anti-clockwise. I'm not sure whether this was something made up on the spot by one of my Dad's mates to perplex a seven year old Mr Larrington, or whether it was more widespread. I'm not daft enough to believe it, though it did appear to be true in a Several of attempts to count the posts, including one where a handkerchief was left on top of the post we designated as number one. Mr Larrington (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've heard this as well, but never tried it myself. Not something that makes much sense really, but if a reliable ref can be found it might be interesting to at least add to the article as folklore (but only if the article ever gets exapanded). Ranger Steve (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Another wood henge

Check out Stonehenge New Henge. Simply south (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Has "Woodhenge" become a generic term?

There are now three or four places called "Woodhenge", besides this one. ([1][2][3]). Whenever someone makes a wikilink to woodhenge, it always comes here. Should we have a dab page, even if the main link is to here? HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Arguments for "Yes"

Yes, this is probably a generic term now, and this article should more specifically clarify that it's the famous English Woodhenge near the more famous Stonehenge.

See: e.g., one in Ohio and another in Germany:

• "Woodhenges are not common but not unheard of in Ohio." https://www.archaeologicalconservancy.org/possible-woodhenge-discovered-hopewell-excavation/
• "The 4,300-year-old site, which was originally constructed in the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age, might more properly be called the “Woodhenge” of Germany because it was made of 1,200 locust tree logs." https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/4300-year-old-woodhenge-germany-revealed-public-first-time-006224 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldCoastPrior (talk • contribs) 02:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Created disambiguation page

I created a disambiguation page for Woodhenge, leaving the famous Woodhenge near Stonehenge as the primary topic. GoldCoastPrior (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Other possible explanation for the inhumated child in the centre

Can it be that the "crouched inhumation of a child" (and maybe also that of the teenager) had to do with a victim of a disaster, e.g., a wildfire? Are there any solid arguments for the interpretation of a dedicatory sacrifice? If not, why formulate only such an (atrocious) hypothesis? Sacrificing a child was probably not without consequences. Children are seldomly punished like adults in any society, certainly in such a public way.

Maybe the grief of loosing a child of the community had to remind the people of that community to be careful if subsequent disasters occurred ...

What was the precise form of the postholes? Is it sure they are not the traces of unearthed trees? Is it sure there were actually wooden objects in those holes when the monument was in function? (These questions are not necessary completely linked to one another.) If there were no wooden objects in the holes when the monument was finished, it was a safe place where no wood could start burning and the place had maybe a very specific practical function. What was the precise size of the holes? Holes can even be used to hide temporarily if they are sufficiently big. (I do not claim that was the case. With the knowledge I have at this moment, it is not sure the holes could not be used for that. Children could maybe even play in such a place when there was no big danger, at least if the holes were not too deep.)

VandenheedeJanGJ (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Docteur en Arts et Sciences de l'Art (Université de Paris I - Panthéon - Sorbonne)

New Sources

I am beginning an edit on this page as part of my college Art History class and am proposing the use of these sources in the new edit: FilmFanatic8 (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi FilmFanatic8 - Collyer's site is a personal website and he isn't an archaeologist so far as I can see, certainly not a well-published one. And we should avoid newspaper reports as much as possible, they don't always get it right. In any case the Daily Mail article is 5 years old, if that discussion can't be found in archaeological sources then it sounds like it was quickly resolved.

Well, this is interesting. Stopping to look around for sources I came upon New henge at Stonehenge which certainly needs a better title and cleanup, and it does turn out that the Daily Mail didn't get it right, it misquoted Pitts.[4] - using the Daily Mail would certainly have been a mistake. The full statement is at [5]. But this doesn't seem to be relevant to Woodhenge, which is 2 miles away from Stonehenge. Doug Weller (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

References