Talk:Orchard Park, Cambridgeshire

Images

The gallery of images currently on the page just mostly to be a collection of pictures that do little to add to the text. There are three pictures of the site of the current housing estate under construction. These could be anywhere, there is little distinctive to see. The image of the Premier Inn is similarly generic - it's just a picture of a bland chain hotel. I propose that most of these should only be on commons. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ilikeeatingwaffles's point that the under-construction pictures are probably irrelevant now that the park is near completion. Nevertheless, the others are representative of the park and illustrate the article well. Even though it's just "a bland chain hotel", the Travelodge is a significant business in the park. cmɢʟee☎✉ 13:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It may well be a significant business in the ward (the only one?) but the image itself doesn't add anything. It looks like any old building of its type. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbury Camp

Just been looking at an old Cambridge map from the 1920s and 'Arbury - Site of Camp' - and the earthwork - are marked right where you are now! Amazing! You're a part of prehistoric history and the origin of the 'Arbury' name. Like Cambridge or Chesterton, the name would probably not originally have been pronounced as we pronounce it today, but that is its origin - and like Cambridge and Chesterton - spellings and pronunciations have evolved over the centuries. Arbury Camp predates both Cambridge and Chesterton! Of course, the modern day Arbury is not where Arbury was at all - Orchard Park is! But there were two large fields at the Manor Farm (now North Arbury/King's Hedges Ward) called 'Arbury' and 'Arbury' field, and evidence of Roman habitation (post-Arbury Camp) were found there, including building footings and burials.

I read recently that the Arbury name (as in Arbury Road) is the only prehistoric-based street name in the city! All else is later.

(86.176.53.174 (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC))

Arbury Camp is not believed in archaeological circles to have been a ring fort - it was the iron age equivalent of a village

Most modern archaeological thinking on Arbury Camp (and, indeed, back many decades) is that the site was undefended. It was not a ring fort, but more the equivalent of an iron age village, with the earthwork simply to defend the village and its animals from wolves and robbers. See Sallie Purkis, Arbury Is Where We Live! EARO, 1981, and the brief article on the historic Arbury district here: https://www.arbury-cambridge.com/2022/10/arbury-archaeology-and-history-part-1.html 86.157.108.247 (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)