Talk:Cursus Barrows

Wording

Nice start Simply South, but I've reworded a few things. This is big news for sure, but there's a touch of hyperbole from the archaeologists that doesn't really belong here. Biggest find in 50 years is pretty subjective, and they cannot be anywhere near as certain as they want to sound about what this feature is. All they have is a grainy black and white magnetometer scan! Good work though. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll see what happens in the next few days. Simply south (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Title?

Not the best title for the Page. Its neolithic, not new. "Another Henge at Stonehenge" would be better.

While we are on the subject of the naming of things, is it totally out of the question that we find another word for what they are calling henges in Archaeology?

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with this title and I'm not really sure of the need for an article now to be honest. It mmight be better folding this information into something like Stonehenge Landscape.

Re Henge's, I'm not sure what else we could call them. Most things that get the name henge are henges quite literally - except Stonehenge, and we're in no position to change that. Ranger Steve ^Talk 06:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Move / delete / redirect to a new page

This page has always had an unsatisfactory title, and in fact the content has always been a little dubious. In 2010 the Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes project issued a press-release, with a certain amount of hyperbole about this "New Henge" they found, although they actually called it a "new 'henge-like' Late Neolithic monument" which was "one of the most exciting discoveries there in 50 years". This got picked up in the media and became "a second henge at Stonehenge" which was "the most exciting find there in 50 years" etc. There was little information about precisely where it was, which meant archaeologists such as Mike Pitts were left scrabbling around trying to find its location. It was only later that it became clear that this "new henge" was actually a ring of postholes around an already known round barrow known as Amesbury 50. (I added the location section to this article in 2014‎). This "new henge at Stonehenge" has since become a "hengiform monument". The Pastscape entry for Amesbury 50 describes this 2010 discovery in very dull (and probably more realistic) terms.

Since this barrow is part of the Cursus Barrow Group I think this page should probably be moved to Cursus Barrow Group. The Cursus Barrow Group is a cluster of about 18 barrows which forms a distinct group. The fact that Amesbury 50 is a hengiform monument is of some interest, but it's not unique: the Fargo Hengiform is also in this group. This page as it currently stands can easily be reduced to two paragraphs and can certainly be a subsection in a Cursus Barrow Group page. Pasicles (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, but a quick search suggests "Cursus Barrows" is probably used more often. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. Keeping it simple. I'll move this page to Cursus Barrows then, and work-up a new page. Pasicles (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cursus Barrows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120711182439/https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/iaa/departments/archaeology/news/2010/new-henge.aspx to http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/iaa/departments/archaeology/news/2010/new-henge.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)