Talk:Prehistoric Orkney

Prehistoric Orkney has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 21, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 9, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that prehistoric Orkney has provided so many ancient ruins (pictured) that one of the islands in the archipelago has been described as "the Egypt of the North"?

Scottish Islands High‑importance

	Scottish islands portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland 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.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Minoan civilization#Burial and mortuary practice|Minoans]] The anchor (#Burial and mortuary practice) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Date of Storegga Slide?[edit]

This page says 5840BC, but the Storegga Slide page estimates the last occurrence at 6100BC. Which is it? Jeff Worthington (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above says "around 6100 BC", Fettes.com says "approximately 7,000 years before present" and Wickham-Jones has something similar. Smith has "It is now recognised to have taken place in the autumn of a year around 8000 BP". Edinburgh University has "about 8200 years ago". I am pretty sure the 5840 date was from Smith, and someone may have asked him the same question! The peril of web citations. I'll change the text as clearly it's a little over-precise. Thanks for spotting this. Ben Mac Dui 08:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prehistoric Orkney/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting GAR. Pyrotec (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial scan[edit]

This appears to be a good, stable, well-referenced article. It will take me a day or so to review it. Pyrotec (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This article has an impressive number of in-line citations (101) and is generally well written: lying, possibly, somewhere between GA and FA. Having said that, the lede section could be improved, I made some minor changes; and I found some unreferenced statements. The final para in the main Neolithic section comparing Orkney with Egypt and Stonehenge needs a citation; as does the "Egypt of the North" citation in the Early Dwellings subsection; and the flow of ideas from south to north statement in the Heart of Neolithic Orkney subsection. Nevertheless, the majority of the article is at an acceptable level, so I'm awarding GA status now.

Congratulations on the article and thanks for the work that went into producing it. Pyrotec (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review. I will attend to the above as well asap. Ben Mac Dui

Now done. Ben Mac Dui 08:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"agreement amongst historians that ... it is legitimate to talk"[edit]

"There is agreement amongst historians that from about 1000 BC it is legitimate to talk of a Celtic culture in Scotland,[70] although the nature of the Orcadian Celtic civilisation and their relationships to their neighbours remains largely unknown."

I wondered about this date, as from former learnings I thought that Celtic culture developed with the Hallstatt and La Tene culture, well past 1000 BC, with the spread of course also occurring after the developement, so I would have guessed that Celtic culture would have reached Scottland hardly before 500 BC. I just checked the article about the Celts which still supports my perception of the matter.

I wondered also about the formulation, and feel supported by it. Why is it legitimate? By which agreement? Which historians, while other historians (and seemingly the majority) obviously have another opinion? Everybody can legitimate everything, and every group can agree on everything, so what would be the point. And additionally, is it even a matter of historians, or as I think, a matter of archeologists? Truchses (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. It is cited, but may be either inaccurate or an over-generalisation. I'll look into this asap. Ben Mac Dui 13:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keays' (1994) Collins Encyclopaedia of Scotland only says that the Celts arrived in Britain "probably as early as 700 BC". Moffat's comments made a decade later suggest that historians are only now reluctantly conceding an early date of 1000 BC. 800 BC is the beginning of the Iron Age in Scotland and (as far as I am aware) there is no evidence of a significant new culture arriving in the north or west of Scotland after that date prior to the desultory Roman engagement. The absence of written records makes interpretation hazardous however. This is not a subject about which I am knowledgeable and I will seek assistance. Ben Mac Dui 18:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odin Stone of Orkney depictions[edit]

If we have an artist's rendering of the Odin Stone, and it was destroyed in 1814, isn't it safe to assume the 100 year copyright date US PD rule is in effect for uploading and using the image here? Another one here that gives the artist with claim the sketch is from the 19th century. I believe this is within safe reason. 4.242.174.63 (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The former is described as an "old artist's rendering" but that could mean that the artist was old when they drew it last year. I think the latter exists on Commons, although note the comment on Orkneyjar that "it is unlikely that this is a particularly accurate reproduction". Ben Mac Dui 17:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient central 'cathedral' in Prehistoric Orkney[edit]

Has anything been written about in this article about the massive 'cathedral' they have recently uncovered in Orkney? Read more at "The ‘cathedral’ at the heart of Neolithic Orkney" - I don't see much in this article about it...maybe someone would like to add it? --172.164.168.232 (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned under "Ring of Brodgar" per excavations at Ness of Brodgar - it just doesn't mention the "cathedral" idea by name - although the latter's article does. Ben Mac Dui 18:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]