Talk:Avebury

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Avebury 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

Archives: 1

UK geography High‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

England High‑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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paranormal High‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Museums High‑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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites High‑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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology High‑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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

World Heritage Sites High‑importance

	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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiltshire Top‑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 articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is The Following A Valid Assumption These Days?

"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. 82.71.30.178 (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. At least it doesn’t feel accurate or remotely valid to me. British archaeology relies on a few colonial and deterministic assumptions (like progress in the western sense is universal) that also rely on structural white supremacy, again, like euro-style development is universal or expected. This is a problem with most of wikipedia in my (Kikila at https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca/learningtolisten/indigenous-community-advisory-ica/) reading of it. The reliance on Aubry (whatever their name is) from 1979 is tonedeaf as well, and assumes that a pre modern population would fear “nature” the way christian theologians anticipate. This sort of writing makes our ancestors look like they were huddling fearfully awaiting a modern period, which they weren’t, and is racist in so many ways. If folx read more Vine Deloria Jr and Leanne Betasamosake Simpson we would produce better histories of our ancestors. Kikila mai Tawhiti (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broken infobox image

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)[reply]

An editor reverted the infobox to a working version today. Wire723 (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Simon Burchell (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sizes?

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)[reply]

OK made change and gave C. Malone as ref. Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discovery

The recent reversion contradicts the main text: "It was in the Early Modern period that Avebury was first recognised as an antiquity that warranted investigation. Around 1541, John Leland, the librarian and chaplain to King Henry VIII travelled through Wiltshire and made note of the existence of Avebury and its neighbouring prehistoric monuments."Dimadick (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing it here. How does that constitute an archaeological discovery? It was already there, and Leland mentioned it. This is not a claim that he discovered it. If I send you a postcard from London, I am not claiming I discovered it - it was already there. I feel that your category cannot be taken seriously and I am removing it again. You should not have replaced it before discussion. If a consensus is reached here saying it should go in then of course I will respect that. Similarly, I expect you not to re-add the category without that consensus in its favour. Thank you and best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Era style - BC or BCE?

An IP has correctly pointed out that this article had a mixture of ‘BC’ and ‘BCE’ as era styles. Per MOS:ERA one style or the other should be used. The IP has changed BC to BCE throughout. The style chosen should be by consensus, so I am reverting this. But the style should be consistent. I prefer BC, because this is the commonly understood style, used, for instance, by the BBC in its programmes on archaeology, and by the British Museum. What are other editors’ views? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a very strong feeling but would prefer BC for the same reasons as above – plus it seems to be the chosen format on the linked NT and EH sites. I know that their being the owners/managers doesn't give them absolute rights here but I do feel it's an influence we can acknowledge. And well done the IP for noticing and caring, as consistency is hugely important, and well done you for reverting to wait for consensus. DBaK (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support BC, which I find more often in articles on UK archaeological sites. Wire723 (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for missing this discussion earlier, but I prefer BCE for the following reasons. Firstly, it avoids privileging Christianity and Christianity is not the world's majority's religion. Secondly, the article as it is has 7 uses of the term BC and 8 mentions of the term BCE, meaning that the term BCE is a majority in this article. 174.95.75.38

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency in the use of era styles in this article. I do not agree that using BC privileges Christianity. It is my impression that to most people it is a label which has no religious significance. And BCE uses the dating system invented for Christianity, so if BC privileges Christianity, so does BCE. Regarding the numbers of each use – since these are almost equal, it seems to me that neither has priority, which is why I started this discussion, to see what the general view is amongst editors. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a clear majority for BC, so unless there are further comments I will change the article to BC. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made the change to wholly BC. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No sources

The lede and first 3 paragraphs contain zero sources, but surely someone could insert them, yes? Josh a brewer (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally sources aren't needed in the intro when it provides a summary of the rest of the article which is itself properly sourced. MOS:LEADCITE refers. -- Wire723 (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: FYSEM-UA 900 Busting 11 myths about the archaeology of human evolution

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zionnalof (article contribs).

National Trust pilot

Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

issues with narrative and white supremacy

Moved another user's comment here and created section —BillC ^talk 10:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC):[reply]

the stuff starting at the “early modern period” is basically what a bunch of nobles thought of the stones and doesn’t read as a history of the stones. This sort of “history” erases a lot. Here it is written as if the stones needed a bunch of nobles/gentry to write about them which is then presented “as history.” My suggested edit would be to call this “historiography” or be honest that this is only what a select group of privileged nobles used the stones for in constructing a narrative that supported further christian/science (and therefore white) supremacist conceptions of social order.

Help me decolonize wikipedia. We owe it to our ancestors. Kikila mai Tawhit

I see nothing in this article which supports ‘white supremacist conceptions of social order’. And I suggest you read WP:RGW. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Trust - pilot 2

Hello all, following on from 2022's pilot, I'm working on a second pilot with the National Trust (more here). This includes introducing some volunteers to Wikipedia editing. Yesterday (22 Jan) I ran a training session with some volunteers from Avebury, who are interested in contributing to the encyclopaedia. I'd be grateful for your patience any future support you can give them. Though they are based at Avebury, a wide range of topic ideas came up in their enthusiasm, including RAF bases, a village near Bradford, Japanese translation, and many more. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avebury Papers project

Hello! I am a postdoctoral researcher for the Avebury Papers project. I work for University of York, and University of Bristol and the National Trust are key project partners. I have made some edits to the page today, and intend to make further edits. My aim is to share new research and information on Avebury as I encounter it during the Avebury Papers project. Please do be in touch if you have any queries regarding COI. Medievalfran (talk) 13:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]