Talk:Grime's Graves

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 13:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Flint miner's apostrophe?

Grimes Graves or Grime's Graves?

The general rules of grammar would suggest Grime's Graves, per the recent page move. However this is a proper name, and they're frequently following their own sweet way. So which is it to be, and we need sources to make this decision robust.

For starters, Grimes Graves, Norfolk Volume II: Excavations 1971-72, The Flint Assemblage Mercer, R., Saville, A. English Heritage (1981) uses "Grimes".

Do we have equally robust academic sources with the apostrophe? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

English Heritage, who run the site, say "Grime's" ([1]), though their specialist, Peter Topping, doesn't ([2]). As The Neolithic Portal suggests, both names seem current and reasonably correct. Google book searches show plenty of respectable hits for both: Grime's and Grimes. The British Museum at the moment uses Grimes it seems, but I think not consistently. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't regard English Heritage as RS for much. When they involve an outside expert they're usually pretty good, but in-house generated content can often be quite iffy. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well as "owners" they decide how the signage describes the site, which would normally be pretty definitive. Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Except when they have glaring typos in the signage (dates a century out of sequence!) and it's only caught at the last minute by the sign maker. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grime's Graves. 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/20130212014543/http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/caah/landscapeandtownscapearchaeology/neolithic_flint_mines_of_sussex.html to http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/caah/landscapeandtownscapearchaeology/neolithic_flint_mines_of_sussex.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article currently claims (without a footnote, though probably from one of the listed sources) that the mine was active between circa 2600 BC and 2300 BC, but the article in Världens Historia states that it had its heyday from around 2650 and 2100 BC, after which it was briefly reopened in 1550 BC. Any way to resolve this contradiction? Glades12 (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The official English Heritage guide book shows the mine being active roughly between 3250 BCE and 2000 BCE There is then a gap and then "an explosion of activity and occupation" around 1500 - 1150 BCE with some of the old shafts used as middens and 6 tonnes of worked flint along with evidence of pottery and metal-working at the site. After this there appears to continuing evidence of occupation through the Roman era into Saxon times though no further evidence of flint-mining. Does this help? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, that only contradicts the magazine article on how long the site was active after its reopenment (VH claims that it was closed again after only 100 years and only touched afterwards by archaeologist Greenwell). Maybe we can create a section stating the different sources' claims on the matter, but characterising it is a dispute would be synthesis... Glades12 (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It's actually a little bit vague about how long mining took place in the latter period, merely referring to 6 tonnes of worked stone being found from that era. Opening and closing of the mine is something of an elastic concept for that time, major production would tail off with the introduction of metal tools but there was probably a limited demand from people who didn't trust these new-fangled foreign ideas for quite a while afterwards. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)