Talk:The Merry Maidens

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

Cornwall Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related articles

Low

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

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

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

Neolithic? edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The article describes the circle as being neolithic. Citation for this? Just because it is made of stone doesn't make it "stone age". I don't have a citation dating this specific site, but it is likely to be contemporary with "early bronze age" stone circles (c.3500-2000 BC). JimChampion 00:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The above made me go away and do some reading. Toni Maree Rowe in "Cornwall in Prehistory" (Tempus 2005) discusses the age of Cornish stone circles, and the various interpretations over the years. Summarises by saying that they are of a late neolithic/early bronze age transitional type. The division into stone/bronze/iron age is not rigid anyway. Aubrey Burl in "The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany" (Yale University Press 2000) describes them as being late neolithic. This book is an authoritative tome on the stone circles, so I'll go with his dating. Thus there have been no relevant finds at Penwith circles that would enable a carbon-dating type approach (which has been so useful for dating e.g. burial monuments). JimChampion 09:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

So to summarise it is neolithic? add the citation if you think its necessary. take careMammal4 15:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Current opinion" is that its late neolithic (see any of the books in the References section) so I'd leave it as that. Its an "annoying" thing about stone circles that they're not really open to carbon-dating. The older long barrows and more recent round barrows are easier because they often contain human remains (or other organic material) from the original burials. Neolithic earthworks sometimes have antler picks and so on buried in their ditches. Plain stone circles, like the Merry Maidens, tend to have very little in the way of 'artefacts' so the dating is done using imprecise "old-fashioned" methods. I wouldn't worry about a citation, it could be made more vague (i.e. late neolithic/early bronze age) if anyone strongly objects. JimChampion 19:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Bold textReply

Template:Megalith edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Add topic