Talk:Maiden Castle, Dorset

Unhelpful

The following is singularly unhelpful:

"The name maiden was once believed to derive from the Brythonic mai dun, meaning great hill. Recent work by Richard Coates (Maiden Castle, Geoffrey of Monmouth and Hārūn al-Rashīd, Nomina 29 (2006), 5-60) has made this theory obsolete."

This needs more explanation. Dewrad (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Richard Coates had lectured on the subject, so whomever wrote that must have attended the lecture. Unfortunately, they seem not to have taken very good notes...A website about Northern England talks about a Maiden Castle there, and says it comes from 'moe din' meaning 'grassy plain' but I don't have the first clue if Richard Coates said this or where that information came from. 68.165.238.5 (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes he starts by talking about how the word 'Maiden' may not mean 'great hill' and appears to attempt to explain this by talking about the terminology of the fort as a castle. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Not well written. (Clark) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.193.207 (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with above comments, but am generally disappointed with the overall description of my very favourite British archaelogical site- the most absurd is the line "The castle is very big." Aerial view or plan anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.115.3 (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Stating that "The earthworks are up to 6 m high" is pretty meaningless

Maiden Castle is a multivallate hillfort and as such has many banks and ditches - three main sets in my reckoning.

The greatest height of bank above a corresponding ditch is anything up to 40-50ft (12-15M).

Saying the earthworks are up to 6M high doesnt really describe anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.197.192 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maiden Castle, Dorset/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've read through the article a couple of times: it seems OK, so I will mostly likely award it GA-status in due course, but a few questions/comments first:

• Hill fort - "Since the 1960s, the dominant view has been that the rise of iron lead to social changes in Britain." Did iron rise, somebody lifted it, or goobeldy gook (not sure about the spelling - my spell checker does not like it)?

• I've tweaked the sentence slightly, and I'll try to add something later on why iron caused social changes. (When I re-read that sentence, I was wondering what wonderful alloy iron-lead must be!) Nev1 (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I assume it is to do with iron weapons replacing bronze ones rather some special kind of "yeast" that causes the iron to rise like dough. You have addressed the question and I'm happy with the new text.Pyrotec (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Decline - I'm not clear what 'it' refers to, is 'it' Maiden Castle, or the Wealde?

• Made clear that it's Maiden Castle. Nev1 (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dates/ownership.

• Your information is quite comprehensive covering the last 6,000 years, Neolithic to Pitt-Rivers and you say it is Scheduled and maintained by EH. However, there is no mention of when it was Scheduled or when it came into public ownership (I assume it is). In fact you don't really mention any 'recent' land ownership, other than the 1st century tribes and the anonymous 16/17th century barn builder.

• I've added the scheduling date and will see if I can dig up any more info on later ownership, such as when EH got their hands on it. So far, most of the sources don't seem interested in that. Nev1 (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• The WP:lead Looks quite reasonable as an introduction, but as a summary Pitt-Rivers, Sharples (and Thomas Hardy) don't get a mention. I can understand Hardy, but Pitt-Rivers (and Sharples)!

• They've now all been given a mention in the lead. I was initially a little sceptical about Pitt-Rivers as he's not directly involved with Maiden Castle, but it does give good background. Nev1 (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Pyrotec (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding GA-status at this point as I regard the article as being compliant with the requirements of GA. My question above on "ownership" has not been answered yet, but that does not preclude the awarding of GA-status. Finally, Congratulations on the quality of the article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How much area?

The article states that the fort originally enclosed 67.4 ha and then later was tripled in area to enclose 19 ha. 19 ha is considerably less than one third of 67.4.... is this a decimal place error? (i.e. - was the original enclosure 6.74 ha?) DavisGL (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on that, it was meant to be 6.4 ha rather than 67.4. A clumsy typo I'm afraid, but the other figures in the article say 6.4. Nev1 (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

not the largest iron age fort in England?

Apparently, Credenhill fort covers 'nearly' 50 acres or 'over 20ha', according to this site: http://www.smr.herefordshire.gov.uk/news_events2/credenhill_hillfortinfo.htm Markb (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what criteria have been used when deciding that Maiden Castle is the largest hill fort in Britain, so I have included several citations in the article to the effect that the claim is not spurious and is at least verifiable. Whether it's true is another matter, one I'll leave to the professional archaeologists. Nev1 (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

They may measure they largest hill fort by total size, not just enclosure, as this source says that including Maiden Castle's defences it measured 115.5 acres (46.7 ha), but it also says the enclosed area is 44 acres (18 ha) so isn't the most accurate source. Nev1 (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A cool thing...

While looking for sources online about Maiden Castle, I came across this very interesting news story about a mass grave uncovered near the hillfort. The interesting bit is that some of it sounds very familiar, I think there's some copying going on here. Compare:

In AD 43, the Roman conquest of Britain began. Based on the "war cemetery", Mortimer Wheeler created a vivid story of the fall of Maiden Castle to Roman forces. He believed a legion wreaked destruction on the site, butchering men, women, and children, before setting fire to the site and slighting its defences. However, there is little archaeological evidence to support this version of events or even that the hill fort was attacked by the Romans.

from wikipedia's article with the following extract from the article:

Mr Wheeler created a vivid story about the fall of Maiden Castle to Roman forces, based on a so-called 'war cemetery' he discovered close to the fort. He believed a legion wreaked destruction on the site, butchering men, women, and children, before setting fire to the castle. While there was little archaeological evidence to support this version of events or even that the hill fort was attacked by the Romans, the discovery of the mass grave could change the historical assessment.

The bolded text appears verbatim in wikipedia's article. Potential copyright violation and something that means the article here needs to be rewritten? Not quite. The Daily Mail article the second extract is from was published on the 11th June 2009. I added the first extract to wikipedia's article on 29th May 2009 (albeit I misspelt wreaked the first time, and it would have been much funnier if my typo had been copied too).

Journalists getting their info from wikipedia is lazy, at least check your sources, but at least they picked a sourced article to copy from. But there's a mistake in the Daily Mail article! The "war cemetery" is inside the castle's eastern gateway, rather than near the castle. It's even stated in the same paragraph! Now not even being bother to read that properly is really lazy. I don't think I'll be using the Daily Mail's account of the discovery in this article, wikipedia has a reputation to think of :-P Nev1 (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, I just read the rest of the Daily Mail's article, it looks like pretty much all the background information about the hillfort as opposed to the discovery of the burial is lifted from wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I did leave a comment regarding their 'research' at wikipedia and the fact that you must be really excited that all your hard work has finally come to fruition in a mainstream newspaper, but for some reason the moderators of the site don't seem to want to include it. Strange that. --WebHamster 19:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I took a look at the Reuters press release and Maiden Castle is only mentioned in passing. The discovery doesn't seem to have any bearing on the hill fort, so unless this story develops I don't think it's worth more than a short sentence at most. Possibly no mention at all. Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Population estimates

I have so far been unable to find a good estimate of the population of Maiden Castle and the most authoritative book on the subject (Niall Sharples' English Heritage Book of Maiden Castle) is silent on the subject. This source mentions that Moreau in Die Welt der Kelten gives an estimate of about 4,000 but Moreau was writing in 1958, long before the second excavations at Maiden Castle and Barry Cunliffe's excavations at Danebury. Sharples states that the inhabitation of Maiden Castle was probably similar to Danebury, and Cunliffe has been able to give a rough estimate for the population of the hill fort. This is possible at Danebury because such a large proportion of the site has been excavated, and it would be original research on my part too extrapolate a population for Maiden Castle and academically flawed as developed hill forts were no doubt were diverse in form, size, and purpose, so the population density was probably not uniform. I'm leaving this note here for any inquisitive readers who want an explanation for why the article is mute on the number of people who lived at Maiden Castle. Nev1 (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to intro

The introduction states lots of useful material, but it is very badly ordered. Here is my reordering.

Maiden Castle is an Iron Age hill fort dating from about 600 BC and located 2.5 km (1.6 mi) south of Dorchester in the English county of Dorset.[1][2] Like other "hill forts" of the Iron Age, it was a fortified hill-top settlement and comprises a natural hill fortified by the construction of ramparts and ditches. Occupying a total area of 190,000 m2 (2,000,000 sq ft), it is the largest hill fort in Britain and by some definitions the largest in Europe. The name Maiden Castle may be a modern construction meaning that the hill fort looks impregnable, or could be derived from the British mai-dun, meaning a "great hill".

This first paragraph now contains in a concise and well-ordered form nearly all the stuff that you really need to know. But: is it a World Heritage Site? What is its listing as a British Heritage site? Include this in this first paragraph.

Second paragraph begins:

The site has been occupied at various times since the Neolithic period (give approx date). Continue this paragraph with the potted history in strictly chronological order.

Amandajm (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think it's badly organised? After briefly explaining hill forts because that's the main feature of Maiden Castle, the lead then embarks on a short history of the site. That seems to be what you want except that you suggest putting the name (a post-Iron Age construction) out of chronological order. Your suggestion does have the benefit of cramming most of the interesting bits about the hill fort into the opening paragraph. Although scare quotes around hill fort is not appropriate. Nev1 (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I read a bit further.

• The first section of the body of the article needs to be a thorough Definition of what a hill fort is. This information defines the nature of the thing that we are now able to see at the site. (Don't describe the actual Maiden castle yet.) draw this information from what is already included lower down.

• The second section needs to have a major heading History of site, with further subheadings. The subheadings can either idicate a date, a general period, or a stage of construction. Decide which you are going to use and follow it through in all the subheadings under "History".

• The introductuctory sentence of a new section ought not begin "Excavations have dated such-n-such a stage to such-n-such a date". Make a clear statement putting the period first (or the precise date, but for this early history it is the broad era that is significant). "During the Neolithic period, there was a blah-de-blah on the site. Archaeological excavations have dated this to blah-de BC." Each subsequent section of the history needs an introductory sentence which is a clear as this. This physical history of the site needs to go right up to the recent use as pastureland.

• The final section should have a major heading of Investigation and interpretation or some such. This could be simply divided into paragraphs if there is not a great deal of info, or could have subheadings such as Archaeological investigations and Cultural interpretations.

Amandajm (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• The first section shouldn't explain hill forts as it's about the site before the hill fort. The first paragraph of the second section explains hill forts where it's relevant.
• The whole article is a history of the site, I don't see the point of adding a supra-heading.
• I have added "There was activity on the site of Maiden Castle before the hill fort was built" to the start of the before the fort section as I do feel that otherwise it did start a bit suddenly. [1] Nev1 (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• You may find it useful to read this article's FAC where I have explained the naming of the last section. Adding something like "interpretation" into the heading is just plain wrong as the interpretation of the site has been integrated into the other sections. For a site with as complex a history as Maiden Castle, a separate interpretation section (such as the one in the Danebury article) is impractical as it disassociates the information from where it's most relevant. Nev1 (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I could hardly disagree more with the suggestions made by Amandajm above. I would also point out that her suggested changes would significantly degrade the article. For example "... it was a fortified hill-top settlement and comprises a natural hill fortified ...". Apart from the obviously awkward repetition of "fortified" it is not even correct English; a whole consists of its parts, it does not comprise them. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a last final solution. It is a suggestion for a better structure. Your tweaks to my rewrite are perfectly appropriate. Try this:

Maiden Castle is an Iron Age hill fort dating from about 600 BC and located 2.5 km (1.6 mi) south of Dorchester in the English county of Dorset.[1][2] Like other "hill forts" of the Iron Age, it was a (omit redundant word) hill-top settlement and consists of a natural hill fortified by the construction of ramparts and ditches. Occupying a total area of 190,000 m2 (2,000,000 sq ft), this is the largest hill fort in Britain and by some definitions the largest in Europe. The name Maiden Castle may be a modern construction meaning that the hill fort looks impregnable, or could be derived from the British mai-dun, meaning a "great hill".

Amandajm (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be decided is whether this article is about the Maiden Castle (ie the hill fort) specifically, or whether it is about the site known as Maiden Castle. The article as it stands is probablly about the latter.

If this is the case, then I recommmend that the opening paragraph reflects this. eg: (and kindly remember that this is a suggestion which you, Maleus Factuorum, or anyone else, are most welcome to tweak)

Maiden Castle is a prehistoric (or archaeological) site located 2.5 km (1.6 mi) south of Dorchester in the English county of Dorset, and with a varied history of occupation dating from the Neolithic period. The name Maiden Castle refers to the hill fort of the Iron Age settlement, when the hill was fortified with the ramparts and ditches which are the dominant visible archaeological features of the site. Occupying a total area of 190,000 m2 (2,000,000 sq ft), it is the largest hill fort in Britain and by some definitions the largest in Europe. The name Maiden Castle may be a modern construction meaning that the hill fort looks impregnable, or could be derived from the British mai-dun, meaning a "great hill". The site has such and such a Heritage listing.

Next paragraph summarises the occupation of the site.

This gets around the problem of back-tracking by putting in context that aspect of the site which is best known.

Amandajm (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Dating: Some approximate dates are give, such as "about 600 BC" and "about 450 BC". The next date given is "towards the end of the first millenium BC". This requires the reader to work out exactly what is meant. A lot of readers (and wiki editors) have problems with the concept of 1301-1400 being the fourteenth century, not the 13th century. (I corrected one such edit yesterday). Using concepts of time like the first and second millenia is even more confusing. Many might ask what on earth is meant. Is this a thousand years BC or what? If so, why the backward jump.

You understand what is meant. Express it in language that will make it just as clear to others. Amandajm (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Reasons the current is used:

1. The lead currently has a broadly chronological structure – which you advocate – the only place this isn't true is the opening paragraph.
2. The opening paragraph states what Maiden Castle is. Because not everyone knows what a hill fort is, it is necessary to explain the concept immediately.
3. Then a chronological structure can be adopted, starting with the background of the Neolithic and Bronze Age activity.
4. The name Maiden Castle is a later construct (ie: not what the inhabitants would have called it); it's accepted that the ancient name was probably Dunium. As the lead is arranged chronologically, it therefore makes sense to put the information about the meaning/derivation of Maiden Castle towards the end.
5. The site's status as a Scheduled Monument was only granted in 1997 and relates to the conservation of the site. Therefore it belongs at the end of the lead.

Reasons not to use your version:

1. Prehistory and archaeology are not synonyms, archaeology covers all aspects of material culture in human history.
2. Activity is not the same as occupation, which is to close to inhabitation. As the article states, the enclosure was probably not inhabited, and the bank barrow was a territorial marker.
3. The article is primarily about the hill fort, the Neolithic enclosure and bank barrow are back ground. This does not mean the information should be removed from the article as it is important to the understanding of the site; context is very important. The Neolithic enclosure and the bank barrow are part of Maiden Castle and its history. However, the name refers to the hill fort, not he earlier monuments.
4. Your proposed lead would still necessitate some back tracking. For example, the second paragraph would have to start with when the hill fort was founded, quite a bit before the site was listed as a Scheduled Monument. What you're doing is using the first paragraph to summarise the lead, which is a summary of the article. That seems a bit pointless to me.
5. There's too much repetition: in the second sentence along "hill" is used three times. Poor prose.
6. There's too much imprecision, for example: "hill fort of the Iron Age settlement". Huh? The hill fort is the Iron Age settlement.
7. Why are there scare quotes around hill fort?

Dating: the first occurrence of millennium has been changed to 100BC as a more precise date was available, however the other occurrences should remain. It is a result of some necessary imprecision, for example in "Hill forts developed in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age, roughly the start of the first millennium BC" is used because the source does not provide a convenient date range (probably because of the uncertainty of dating the emergence of hill forts as a result of the problem of identifying them and deciding what is and isn't a hill fort; not as easy as it sounds). Millennium is not a specialist term, if someone doesn't understand it, there are wikipedia articles which explain the concept. Likewise, it would be inappropriate to use your reasoning to remove terms such as "17th century" from articles and replace it with a range. Nev1 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Response

(new heading makes editting easier) Logical flow not nit-picking over the number of times the word hill is used which you or I or anyone can fix.

The first sentence says that it is an Iron age hill fort. That is what it is. So that is what you tell about in the first paragraph. That is what is visible. That is what it is famous for.

Many sites have a long history of use. Many buildings have a long architectural history. It is usual when writing about such a site to define it bby what is there at the present. The sentence that tells us The site was originally a Neolithic causewayed enclosure and bank barrow, and had been used for growing crops during the Bronze Age, in about 1800 BC, before being abandoned has no place whatever in the first paragraph. It is an orphaned piece of information that belongs to the history.

However, to say that habitation dates back to that time is appropriate, with the longer sentence about the causeway and so on coming later.

Yes, the first paragraph should give you a concise summary of the most significant points including its heritage status. The rest of the intro somes up the various sections of the body of the article.

• Here, for example, is the introductory paragraph on Winston Churchill:

Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (30 November 1874 – 24 January 1965) was a British politician known chiefly for his leadership of the United Kingdom during World War II. He served as Prime Minister from 1940 to 1945 and again from 1951 to 1955. A noted statesman and orator, Churchill was also an officer in the British Army, historian, writer, and artist. He is the only British Prime Minister who has ever received the Nobel Prize in Literature and only the second person to be made an Honorary Citizen of the United States.

• Buckinham Palace:

Buckingham Palace is the official London residence of the British monarch.[1] Located in the City of Westminster, the palace is a setting for state occasions and royal hospitality, and a major tourist attraction. It has been a rallying point for the British people at times of national rejoicing and crisis. Nothing about the marshland or the borough. That comes later.

Amandajm (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have explained earlier, and is made clear in the article, the causewayed enclosure probably wasn't inhabited so saying it was in the lead of all places is categorically unacceptable. I have therefore changed it to "human activity". Other than that the changes you have made to the lead should stay. Nev1 (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Nev!, my mistake! of course it is "categorically unacceptable" have such a stupid error in the introduction, of all places! Well done for pouncing on this stupidity. I humbly acknowledge that "habitation" was the wrong word entirely.

Glad that I was able to contribute to a more satisfactory structure. The subsequent corrections and tweaks by those with the greater knowledge were inevitable. Toodle-oo! Amandajm (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Amandajm (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well deserved FA! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I love articles like these. :) Jason Parise (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well done! Kyle1278 23:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I live within 20 miles of Maiden Castle, I haven't visited for at least 30 years, largely because I remember it is being little more than 'a few mounds'. Since then I've grown up a bit and this incredibly well developed article has given me a reason to go back, this time with a greater understanding of where those mounds came from. Well done all concerned and may I add my congratulations for a well deserved front page feature. Terry C (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow Nev! Can't say fairer than that! You've managed to get someone interested in these old midden heaps ;-) Skinsmoke (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No no, this one's a Maiden heap ;-) Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The main point of this article was to provide information on an interesting subject, and if it prompts some people to take an interest that's fantastic and shows the potential of wikipedia. I agree that you can't grasp the full scale of the site from the ground (I like the images in the article, but they are slightly underwhelming), but there's a great image here (second one down) which gives a great aerial view. Ignore the article the photo's in though, it's mostly copied from wikipedia and what isn't is pretty rubbish. Nev1 (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Plan?

Great article. Any chance of a plan of the hillfort with scale and relevant areas mentioned in the text marked? 86.142.104.78 (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A plan would be very useful (and for anyone researching the site, English Heritage Book of Maiden Castle by Sharples in 1991 has lots of useful plans) but they are not free to use. To obtain a free-use one, it would have to be redrawn. The plan is rather complex with lots of detail, and I wouldn't be keen on asking someone else to go to the hassle of redrawing it (unfortunately I don't have the skill to do it myself; I can just about manage contrast and brightness in Photoshop!). I had hoped that an aerial image would suffice, and some will become available in 2010, but in the meantime I hope that the description is clear enough for a reader to get an idea of the site (although I admit that nothing can quite replace a plan). If you, or anyone else for that matter, think it's really essential, I could make enquiries at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop and see if anyone can help. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)