Talk:Tomnaverie stone circle

Copied text

The entire paragraph had been written by myself anyway. Thincat (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Creating a general introductory section for individual pages about recumbent stone circles

Having had a discussion with Thincat about making a general introductory section for individual pages about recumbent stone circles, based on the text used in this article, I thought I'd bring the discussion here in case anyone else is also interested to discuss:

The current introductory section is (with references removed):

These stone circles consist of a circle of upright stones, the orthostats, with a particularly large megalith, the recumbent, lying on its side with its long axis generally aligned with the perimeter of the ring between the south and southwest. On each side of the recumbent is a tall pillar-like stone called a flanker. This type of ring is found in lowland Aberdeenshire in northeast Scotland – the most similar monuments are the axial stone circles of southwest Ireland. Recumbent stone circles generally enclosed a low ring cairn, though over the millennia these have often disappeared. They may have been a development from the Clava cairns found nearby in Inverness-shire and axial stone circles may have followed the design.

This paragraph is a pretty good start, I have a few comments but I must point out I'm no expert and also I don't have access to the two sources currently used. I do have the gazetteer from Welfare but that begins at p271.

• To get rid of 2xwith in the first sentence, I'd suggest: These stone circles consist of a circle of upright orthostats. A particularly large megalith, the recumbent, lies on its side with its long axis generally aligned with the perimeter of the ring between the south and southwest.
• I'm realising I should read into this more, particularly Bradley's The Moon and the Bonfire and also the Recumbent stone circle page, but I was thinking we could add two sentence discussing how the recumbent is used astrologically and how the smallest stone usually stands opposite the recumbent.
• Just for clarity, my aim is to refine this paragraph then copy it over with attribution to pages such as Dunnideer stone circle Mujinga (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

That's all fine by me. I think the archaeologists and, these days. even the archaeoastronomers, do not think these circles were accurately aligned and were not any sort of "precision" observatories. However, there's no doubt some people may still investigate whether the ancients believed this of their ancestors constructions and some present day folk may treat circles in this way. It can obviously be included as a cultural phenomenon. Thincat (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh that's interesting about the alignments, I read something to that effect on recumbent stone circle which got me thinking. I do wonder how people can recreate alignments nowadays when the stones must have shifted over time or even worse been knocked down and re-erected. Strichen stone circle has even been completely demolished twice! I'll read into the sources a bit more then make a suggestion about this paragraph. Mujinga (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Intro proposal

Here's a proposal for that intro section. I haven't added the full refs not to clutter up the talkpage, but I've got them prepared and can also make the final version in cite form as well Mujinga (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

A recumbent stone circle is a type of stone circle constructed in the early Bronze Age. The identifying feature is that the largest stone (the recumbent) is always laid horizontally, on the southern aspect of the ring. A flanker stone stands each side of the recumbent and these are typically the tallest stones in the circle, with the smallest being situated on the northeastern aspect. The rest of the circle is usually composed of between six and ten orthostats graded by size. The builders tended to select a site which was on a level spur of a hill with excellent views to other landmarks. Over seventy of these circles are found in lowland Aberdeenshire in northeast Scotland – the most similar monuments are the axial stone circles of southwest Ireland. Recumbent stone circles generally enclosed a low ring cairn, though over the millennia these have often disappeared. They may have been a development from the Clava cairns found nearby in Inverness-shire and axial stone circles may have followed the design. Whilst cremated remains have been found at some sites, the precise function of these circles is not known.

References

• Bradley, Richard; Phillips, Tim; Arrowsmith, Sharon; Ball, Chris (2005). The Moon and the Bonfire: an investigation of three stone circles in north-east Scotland. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. ISBN 0903903334. – available online

• Burl, H. A. W. (1969). "The recumbent stone circles of north-east Scotland". Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 102: 56–81. ISSN 2056-743X.

• Burl, Aubrey (2000). The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland, and Brittany. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-08347-5.

• Welfare, Adam (2011). Great crowns of stone: The recumbent stone circles of Scotland. Edinburgh: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Momuments of Scotland. ISBN 9781902419558.</ref>

• Welfare, Adam (2018). "Recumbent stone circles". In Burnham, Andy (ed.). The old stones: A field guide to the megalithic sites of Britain and Ireland. London. ISBN 9781786781543.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) – Gazetteer and appendices (pages 271-595) available online

@Mujinga: Thank you for this. I was going to check the text against the citations but then I got stuck. Is Welfare (2018) a typo (and the page range doesn't make sense)? And Burl (1969)? I'd prefer "southwestern aspect" especially when the shortest stone is "northeastern" but I wanted to match the cited source. Thincat (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thincat: Ah, sorry for the confusion, I've added the citations and actually it doesn't muck up the talkpage that much. Good spot on the typo! Mujinga (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mujinga: I'm beginning to see the light! I do not have access to Welfare (2018) which is referred to a lot and which certainly looks to be a good reference and most recent. So, I can't suggest substantive changes in detail because they may conflict with this reference. I'd note, however, that the Gazetteer and Appendices are to Welfare (2011) and not Welfare (2018). I also think when referring to the Gazetteer and Appendices it is worth recording both the "print" and pdf page numbers to avoid confusion. I have no problem with the way you have written this text – it seems suitable to me. I think "southern" and "northeastern" do not go well together – they should be opposites (but I'm less bothered by what azimuth is given). It may be worth saying that the stones are upright apart from the recumbent and that the long axis of the recumbent is along the periphery of the circle and not pointing to the centre. I see you have been very busy and thank you very much for all you have been doing. Thincat (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

i think you make a good point about "southern" and "northeastern" - i just doublechecked the welfare 2018 and it does say "southern", but if you have access to the full text of welfare 2011 and that is more specific, i would say that trumps this 2018 text, which is basically the dumbed down two page version in a book which is a general field guide. i'm hamstrung the other way round since i only have the gazetteer as previously discussed. ah yes i see what you mean about the 2011 references as they already stand on the article, that does make sense although the "pp. 1, 31, 33–37, 236" reference should then be to Welfare 2011a? I'm a bit perplexed by how that's working, I guess I'd prefer 2011a (pdf) and 2011b (book). ok i'll go ahead and add this intro to the article now, please feel free to edit it, seems like we can iron out any problems in situ. i'll note the attribution to recumbent stone circle since some of the new text is based on what is written there. thanks for your patience, i'm trying to explain my workings but i see i still manage to sow the seeds of confusion! Mujinga (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

oh now i see i put the gazetteer pdf on the wrong reference above, that is confusing!

in putting the text in the article, i added the phrase "with its long axis generally aligned with the perimeter of the ring between the south and southwest" referenced to Welfare 2011, see what you think Mujinga (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Thincat (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Great! I'll roll it out to some other pages then, like Dunnideer stone circle Mujinga (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I had been referring to Welfare's 2011 book (which I still have on loan) as Welfare (2011) and simply giving printed page numbers. The Appendix I had been referring to as Welfare (2011a), giving the page numbers showing as if in a book, and then appending the sequential page number in the pdf file (as shown at the top of my my pdf viewer). Now I look again I see that the criticism I made of your draft ought to have applied to Welfare himself! Welfare (2011) page 1 is the most relevant one. He says the recumbent is "on the southern quarter" and the stones "usually decrease in height ... to a point on the north-north-east". So I was somewhat misquoting him. He has a diagram on page 197 showing all the orientations between at one extreme Tomnaverie, a bit west of southwest, and Ardlair very slightly east of south-south-east. South to south-south-west is at the middle of the spread. I doubt whether any of this matters really – it would only matter if it was 21st century politics! Thincat (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh right! That's funny about Welfare 2011, cripes it is a minefield making this paragraph. Using 2011 and 2011a is ok for me too, happy to stick with that then. "appending the sequential page number in the pdf file" - that is a bit perplexing for me, since the pdf has its own page numbers. I was already wondering about it and that's why i removed it at first, because for example the ref says "pages 209–213 in pdf file" but in my pdf the gazetter starts at (book) page 271 and i've been using those page numbers in my references. I agree it's not earth-shakingly important but i'd like to get it right since i hoped to use the paragraph as an intro for other recumbent circles and I also use th Welfare pdf for other references. What's the best way forward then? Shall we change "is always laid horizontally, with its long axis generally aligned with the perimeter of the ring between the south and southwest" to something like "is always laid horizontally, with its long axis generally aligned with the perimeter of the ring between on the southern aspect"? Then if I'm reading what you said right we maybe trim down the page numbers "Welfare (2011), pp. 1, 31, 33–37, 236", although it is also currently sourcing "Over seventy of these circles are found in lowland Aberdeenshire in northeast Scotland – the most similar monuments are the axial stone circles of southwest Ireland. Recumbent stone circles generally enclosed a low ring cairn, though over the millennia these have often disappeared". Mujinga (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)