Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of prehistoric Scotland

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 21:49, 2 May 2008.

Timeline of prehistoric Scotland[edit]

A comprehensive overview of the major sites from the Mesolithic, Iron and Bronze Ages, with brief scene setting introductions to each section. Self-nom. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Italic text[reply]

Comments

  • Don't think there's a need to mention the English Channel as being dry land, not because it's called the English Channel, but because it's so far away from Scotland
    • I've amended the wording in a way that hopefully makes the issue's relevance more obvious i.e. that it was possible to walk from the Northern European plain to Orkney at the time.
  • Link to broch in the image caption
    •  Done
  • "although the acidic conditions tend to dissolve organic materials" What acidic conditions? Is a ref possible, too?
    •  Done "Wickham-Jones (2007) page 25" at the end of the next sentence was the ref, but I've changed the wording slightly and added a longer explanatory footnote with refs.
  • "However, there are also..." Don't start a sentence with a conjunction
      • "However" not a conjunction and is best at the start of a sentence, to orient the reader to the upcoming angle in relation to the previous statement(s). Tony (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done
  • Link to arable land so the townies understand
    •  Done
  • "A number of the sites span very long periods of time and the distinctions between the Neolithic and later periods are not clear cut." As a general rule I don't like the last sentences of paragraphs to go without a reference, but this definitely should have one if it's saying there could be some ambiguity.
    •  Done There is considerable ambiguity, especially as the presumed dates are different for different parts of Europe. Moffat says: "The Neolithic is generally followed by two more categories, The Bronze Age and the Iron Age.... They are not very helpful tags and require so much qualification and explanation that it is better to use dates where they are available."
  • Consider putting the key into a small wikitable
    •  Done
  • Link to Mesolithic period
    •  Done
  • Link "glaciated" to glacier
    •  Done
  • "Nonetheless" shouldn't be used to start a sentence
    •  Done
  • There's alot of jargon and complicated/confusing stuff in the tables
    • I've gone through it and provided a little more explanation and added more links. I may be too close to it to see what else might be done and suggestions are welcome.
  • I don't understand the burn hazelnut shells thing. Is this an archaeological find, or a synonym to something else? Why is this important to prehistoric Scotland? I can stick hazelnuts in the oven for 2 hours an burn them.
    • It is just as it says - a large pit containing the charred remains of a huge volume of hazel nuts. Its existence is something of a mystery. The gatherers must have removed just about every last nut from the island, and almost certainly had encouraged the growth of the trees in the first place, yet there is no evidence of any repeat performances. The collectors may have cut down most of the trees for the harvest! The main midden is surrounded by smaller roasting pits. It is certainly an archaeological find, and although not every last Mesolithic site is listed this is one of the larger and most significant ones - even it its significance is not clear. I'd be happy to amend the wording but I am not sure how else to put it.
  • "shell midden" jargony
    • It is the correct technical description and is also Scottish English. "Shell kitchen rubbish dump" would be the English English. Sorry, I was forgetting this is Wikipedia. I've linked to the Midden article.
  • "burned", then "charred". Again with the hazelnut shell thing.. Is it a find, how is it known to be prehistoric, etc?
    • The dates are known via carbon dating. These are finds clearly indicating human activity. A few burnt shells may not seem much but until quite recently the 7700 Rùm find was the oldest in Scotland.
  • Why is "An Corran" in itallics?
    • Its Gaelic. I'll check if there is a common English usage: there does not seem to be an English language equivalent so it commonly appears in this form in English publications. I've removed the italics.
  • "(S,O)" and the others should have a space after the comma
    •  Done
  • Does the picture of Oronsay beach depict anything mentioned in the list?
    • Only Oronsay and Jura that are mentioned in the list. Both sites are close to the sea and its the closest I could find to an image relevant to the Scottish Mesolithic. I've added something to the caption.
  • Link to hunter-gatherer
    •  Done
  • "Development is not however linear." is stubby
    •  Done

That's all from me -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'll follow up on the rest asap. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 09:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now attempted all of the above. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 17:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support well-written and referenced, good use of images. I have some suggestions (but already support the list for FL):
  • Any reason why these are not sortable lists?
    • Two reasons - the text is designed to be read in chronological order, and the lists are neither long nor contain much information that someone might want to sort. Having said that, there is no reason not to have them sorted and there may be some benefit if (for example) someone wanted to put the Mesolithic Types together or by alphabetised location. I'll put this in if you think it might be valuable.
      • I would not sort the "Details" column, but the dates could be sorted in reverse order if desired, or one could sort by location as noted, or by type and see all the S(tone) finds or whatever. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've made the tables sortable, but the width parameters (necessary to enclose the Details) seem to prevent the adding of an unsortable column - or at least I haven't found a way to do it. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I knew how to do this and took the liberty of doing so just now - revert if it is somehow not what you wanted. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks - its easy when you know how! 08:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Would it help to give the rough dates for the Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze and Iron Ages?
    • The problem is that the periods are differentiated by indeterminate events. The Paleolithic lasts until the retreat of the ice, the Mesolithic until the adoption of farming, the Neolithic until metalworking. They might begin at different times in different parts of the country. See also above quote from Moffat. I've put in some extra text in the lead along above lines.
      • That makes it clearer - my numerical brain just noted that the Mesolithic was all before about 4300 BC, the Neolithic was all between 3900 and 2400 BC, and the Bronze and Iron were between 2000 and about 100 BC. The text addition makes it clearer, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see Last glacial period is already linked in the lead (as "ice retreated"), but I wonder if it would also be a better link for "glaciated" than glacier in Mesolithic. I know the glacier link is from User:Matthewedwards, so only change if you both think it better.
    • Not sure - I'll sleep on it.
  • In Key to predominant "Type": why are some terms linked, but others are not?
    • Sheer idleness! Actually I wasn't quite sure what the links should be yesterday. They are fixed now. Stone is a dab page but the finds refer to more than one meaning of the word.

Excellent list and hope my suggestions are useful, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied above - as noted my ideas are only that, not commands, so do as you see fit. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on the first sentence (I haven't gotten any farther into the article), which currently says "This Timeline of prehistoric Scotland is a chronologically ordered list of important sites":
    • "Timeline" should not begin with a capital letter. --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done
    • I'd like this sentence, or possibly a new sentence immediately following it, to include some words about what these sites are important for. (Don't assume that the reader knows what makes a "prehistoric site" an "important" site.) Presumably this could use terms such as archaeological sites and megaliths, and could mention evidence of human habitation and material culture. --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added an additional sentence that I hope covers the first point. At first glance I think much of the second sentence is covered lower down - I'll have a longer look this evening Insha'Allah. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC) I am open to suggestions but I am not sure what else to add. The last para of the lead section indicates the three main periods with reference to the main cultural and material changes that they incorporate and both the lead and first section make it clear that we are talking about the earliest known examples of human habitation. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oppose for now. My concern is that the article does not adequately explain the scope of the list. Item 1B in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria requires that "the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject"; implicit in that criterion is a need for a clearly defined scope. This is a list of "important sites" from the period defined as "prehistory," but it does not explain what "important" means, nor what a "site" is in this context. Archaeological site contains some good thoughts on this topic, but because I think it likely that some of Britain's "important sites" have not been and are no longer capable of being "investigated using the discipline of archaeology", it may not be a complete definition of "site" for this article.
          • I have linked to 'Archaeological site' in the lead. The next sentence identifies the criteria i.e. earliest/most notable. It is not possible for a list of this nature to identify every archeological site in Scotland - there are about 570 brochs alone. Narnian timeline only lists the events considered significant, Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori does not list every experiment and still less Timeline of chemistry. In other words this is a dynamic list which ( I believe) does not omit any major component of the subject. If there are key examples omitted I'd be happy to include them. 'Site' does not cover the environmental events and I hope the wording explains that clearly. Done?
    • Ideally, the first sentence (or perhaps one following it) would include a link to the Scotland article and a definition of "prehistoric" (as the term applies to Scotland). --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done There was a link to Scotland a little lower down. I've added as sentence at the close of the lead indicating when prehistory ended. --Ben MacDui
        • I still have a concern that the beginning of the lead section does not effectively define the article's scope. A person completely unfamiliar with the subject should be able to discern the subject matter from the beginning of the article. For example, since this is a focused article on one aspect of Prehistoric Scotland, that article should be linked early in the initial paragraph. Currently, however, the only link seems to be in "See also" -- that would be OK if this were a vestigial sort of list, but it is not sufficient for featured content. --Orlady (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done I'm afraid I don't have a very high opinion of 'Prehistoric Scotland' half of which seems to be about geology and little of which is properly referenced. I've linked to it in the lead nonetheless.
            • Poor referencing notwithstanding, there is a good reason for Prehistoric Scotland to include geology. Geologists and paleontologists happen to believe that the time before history also includes a time before human occupancy of the earth. The word "prehistoric" is often used to comprise all of time before the advent of written history. See, for example, Category:Prehistoric life. Ideally, this "timeline" article would indicate not only when "prehistory" ends in Scotland, but also when it begins (i.e., with the first archaeological evidence of human habitation). --Orlady (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              •  Done I believe - further comments follow below.
  • I think both Prehistoric Scotland and this list article should contain a brief explanation of the Dark Age. This is desirable because there are few written records from that period and sites from the Dark Age can be confused with prehistoric sites (particularly by ignorant readers like myself, but also occasionally by experts). In this article, a logical place for this information might be Timeline of prehistoric Scotland#Sites of uncertain date, since that part of the list includes a site that is "probably of Dark Age origin, although it may be older." --Orlady (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done at least for this list. The Prehistoric Scotland is another issue for another day.

I have attempted to answer these further questions above. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 09:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the changes you have made. I continue to be bothered by the lead paragraph. As written, it still assumes far too much knowledge on the part of the reader. I don't want to write your lead section because I don't have enough knowledge of your topic, but I've been wanting to see more information packed into the lead paragraph. To illustrate the kind of thing I want to see, I tried to rewrite the first paragraph to add information and reduce extra wording, and ended up with the following:
This timeline of prehistoric Scotland is a chronologically ordered list of important archaeological sites in Scotland before the beginning of written records and of major events affecting Scotland's human inhabitants and culture during prehistory. The archaeological sites listed are the earliest examples or among the most notable of their type.
 Done I have amended this para along the lines suggested with a couple of minor changes including a link to List of time periods#Prehistorical periods,which I hope further clarifies ('prehistory' is also linked lower down). Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the last paragraph of the introduction, consider linking "various periods of human history" to List of archaeological periods. --Orlady (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • Support A well written and thoroughly referenced work. Easy to support. Dincher (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great pics too, especially the chambered well. Dincher (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you indeed! Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still oppose. I very much want to support this list, because it is an important and interesting topic, the article is attractive (for example, it makes me want to book a trip to Orkney to visit some of these sites), and I know it was a challenging list to create. I admire the ambition of users who work to bring complex lists to FL status. :-) I appreciate the improvements made in response to my comments, but I still have a vague concern that the scope is not as clearly defined as it should be (I am not arguing for a compendious list, but rather for a definition of scope that is unambiguous and supported by sources) and as I delve into the tables I find that some information within the tables may not be as solidly sourced as first meets the eye. While some of the entries are supported by citations to works by recognised authorities, those citations seem to be intermingled with less reliable sources such as this website for a tourist attraction and this newspaper article, archived on an amateur archaeology website. If the topic of the article were not inherently scientific, those sources might not bother me so much, but I am bothered when scientific information is referenced to that kind of source.
Fair enough. I have run out of time today and will add further refs soon. Orkney is well worth a visit of course.
 Done Re references. I did add a bit to the lead too - and thanks for correcting the capitalisations.

Other specific concerns:

I have added a note explaining that this is the only archeaological find for this period found to date in Scotland and an addition to the Moffat footnote adding a little more context. Given this (which I agree was not clear in the earlier version) I don't think three separate rows for a single find is necessary.
I agree that the arrowhead is insignificant except for its being the only archaeological find of its antiquity. However, this article is identified as a timeline of events and sites, not merely a chronological list of archaeological finds. It seems to me that a timeline of prehistoric Scotland ought to list the Allerød and Loch Lomond Stadial as significant events. --Orlady (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have given the Stadial a box of its own. The presumed date of the Islay find is very inconvenient in this regard as it looks like it may relate to this later colder period rather than the Allerod. I have put an explanatory note to the Stadial. If I give the Allerod a box too I think it may just get confusing.Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By analogy, I wonder if the Holocene climatic optimum should be added to this timeline. Is there evidence of how this period affected Scotland? Also, on the subject of events, I would expect to see major movements of peoples in the table, if any are recorded. --Orlady (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) I have added a link to the Holocene climatic optimum. I fear its impact is largely guessing games rather than hard science. The slightly cooler weather towards the end of the Neolithic may have played a part in the decline of the megalith builders, although it did not seem to affect the northward spread of the Beaker folk. Similarly:

We know next to nothing about the provenance of the people of Balbirnie. They were there for nearly a millennium, then vanished. It is tempting to draw modern analogies about an advanced culture fleeing rising sea levels, but it's currently speculation.
The megalith builders of Orkney were a highly advanced culture for their time, but the reasons for their decline and repalcement by a genetically different (and arguably technologically inferior) people are unknown.
Similarly, there is controversy even in the historic period. Almost all the pre-Viking placenames in Orkney have been lost. Is that because everyone stopped speaking P-Celtic (the assumed language of the Picts) and took up Old Norse, or did those naughty Vikings simply put the aborigines to the sword? It is not known.

I'll add a short note about the Beaker folk to the Iron Age introduction. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 11:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done
    • The internal links in the legend are misleading. When the heading says "Type" I expect the links to "bone" and "pottery" (for example) to take me to pages that tell about bone material and pottery in an archaeological context, not pages that tell me what bones and pottery are. Similarly, I would expect the link to "environmental" to explain what "environmental" means in the context of this table; the link to Natural environment is uninformative. If there are no articles to explain what these terms mean in the context of this list, the legend should provide that information. (Links to pages such as bone and pottery could be included in those explanations, but the stand-alone links are not sufficient.)
      • Further to the above comment, I note that Stone is a disambiguation page that does not seem to link to any articles about stone in an archaeologic context. There are several articles about stone in archaeology, however, including Stone tool and numerous more specific articles listed in Category:Lithics. --Orlady (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that several different meaning of 'stone' are involved e.g. stone tools, stone used as a building material, standing stones, natural stone features. The 'Stone' page does at least hint at this as it links to standing stone, Rock (geology) and refers to the 'the building of structures from stone' albeit in the context of masonry. I agree it is not a perfect solution, (although I'd like to think that readers would know what 'stone' is).
 Done I have created an expanded table with explanations. There may be other articles that could be linked to. I notice that Archaeology (a former FA) does not even mention the word 'pottery'!
    • In the tables, there is no explicit indication that the notes in the "Type" column support not just "Type," but all of the information in the given row. The heading should communicate the contents of the column more completely. (My preference would be to insert each notes next to the dates or other detail(s) that it supports, but I know that FLC participants express a strong preference for grouping notes in a separate column.) I don't have a clear idea about the best way to resolve this...
 Done Note placed under 'Type' box.
    • Could the details for each site include some information on the notability/importance/significance of the site? This information is provided now for some sites, such as Knap of Howar and Scourd of Brouster, but its inclusion is not consistent.
This is tricky as the criteria need to fit the context. There are very few Mesolithic sites of any significance, so even the scant evidence on Rum is worth noting, but Orkney alone has such a rich Neolithic history that superlatives are easier to apply. I'll take a look at this again soon.
 Done Attempted - accepting there is always more that can be done I have a minor concern that the article is on its way to becoming a narrative with boxes rather than a list.
    • The breezy tone of the introductory text in the Bronze and Iron Ages section does not seem encyclopedia-like, and it leaves me wondering if I am already supposed to know all about topics such as the priests of Traprain Law and the mummifiers of Cladh Hallan. I think it needs a thoroughgoing revision to conform with WP:MOS.
I have provided a revision that attempts to deal with this.
    • The "Details" for the first table entry for the Bronze and Iron Ages start out "Further developments at Cairnpapple Hill...". One might reasonably ask "Further to what?" Write this as a stand-alone; do not assume that the reader will instantly remember the earlier entry.
 Done
That's all I have for now. --Orlady (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all the above have now been addressed. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the capitalisation of fauna issue:

I often write articles that incorporate references to both flora and different animal taxa. MOS is total mess on this issue with different projects using different systems. There are various possible solutions and the one I use is to capitalise species and use lower case for entries that are not species such as eagle or bilberry. I can't say you are wrong to use lower case, but then I don't think you can say upper case is wrong either. (It has certainly been used in various FA's and GA's.) I should probably try and get WikiProject Scotland to agree to a coherent system, although I fear the Celts may be no readier to form a consensus than the biologists. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not supporting at the moment, but it looks excellent. I do have a few thoughts.
    • Is there a reason the footnotes are in the Type column? It looks like they support the type and not, presumably the whole entry's info. It would be better in the Details column, I think.
In principle, the reference also identifies the 'Type' and there is a brief note after the Type box about this, but they could be moved if you think it's important.
It seemed more important last night, but I'm not too worried about it.
    • Why is the Maeshowe pic used twice? It's the most boring picture there, I think, and it isn't apparently more relevant than any of the others.
 Done This was just a slip of the copy button in an edit last nite. Duplicate removed.
    • Aberdeenshire should be linked each time it is used, since it is in different areas of the list and if I wanted a link to it, it wouldn't be obvious where to look.
 Done
    • The lead would be better off with a single picture, a bit larger than either of the two that are there. I think the Jarlshof pic is the most visually interesting, but YMMV.
 Done (Dun Carloway remains at the top, but its not a major matter as far as I'm concerned.)
    • The see also should be trimmed or eliminated, with the links added elsewhere. Prehistoric Scotland, at the very least, should be linked in the lead if it is not already. Heart of Neolithic Orkney is so much more specific than the article's scope, it would be better off linked elsewhere if possible. Timeline of environmental events should be just plain removed, I think - why include it all? Lots of other articles, even other timeline articles, include info relevant to this page. World Heritage Sites in Scotland I could live with in the see also, but would be better off in the lead, I think.
 Done 'Prehistoric Scotland' is linked in the lead, but its via a pipe so I have left it there. 'Heart of Neolithic Orkney' is now a pipe for Orcadian monuments and has gone from See also. I was asked to include 'Timeline of environmental events' above. I have put it in as a pipe to 'Environmental' in the Type box. I have left 'World Heritage Sites in Scotland' as it it covers a wider scope than prehistory and I couldn't think of an obvious way it could be linked elsewhere.
    • I'm not sure any of the external links are necessary. Do they meet the guidelines at WP:EL?
 Done Sand has since become a reference and has gone. The Broch list was a recent addition and would be better off at Broch. So I have removed it too. The Wikipedia article on Jarlshof is weak so I left that and Archaeolink is (I think) a useful educational link, but I am by no means attached.
    • Standardize the Details column so it uses either full sentences or not - probably better to use full sentences in this case. If you decide not to use complete sentences, don't put a period at the end. (Or a full stop, as I have been led to believe the period is called by the barbarians on that side of the pond:)
Started. (I am proud to be a barbarian, and regularly hunt haggis by the light of the full moon).
My brother went to Scotland once and was attacked by a whole pack of rampaging, be-kilted, bagpiping haggis. You must be so brave! Tuf-Kat (talk)
I think these are now fixed. The article began as, well a list with fairly terse entries. As time has gone on here these entries have been expanded and what you were seeing were the remnants of the earlier style. I am not at all brave and never go out alone in the dark. I trust your brother's mental scars have healed.
Still a few (both mental scars and incomplete sentences) - South Ronaldsay, Stones of Stenness, Maeshowe (which also appears to be missing a word), Rùm, Islay
    • On that same note, is "co-incide" standard Scottish/British English? It looks weird to me, and Google doesn't seem to familiar with it either. I'd use "coincide"
 Done Fixed, thanks.
    • Also, the Details column ought to include the most important data first - for example, A marine core taken from the sea bed between Norway and Shetland included a flint scraper would be better off A flint scraper, found in a marine core taken... because the finding itself, which is what's relevant here, is the flint scraper, not the marine core.
 Done
    • Knap of Howar Neolithic farmstead, probably the oldest preserved house - make it clear what each linked term is. I thought the Knap of Howar was the name of the farmstead found, then that it was the name of the place where it was found, and after reading the article, it is apparently a place (the article's not really clear either - is it just a piece of an island, or does it have some significance?)
The Knap of Howar article is misleading you. 'Knap of Howar' is the name of the archaeological site on which the house/farmstead sits. There is nothing else there, as this Ordnance Survey map shows. I tweaked the image wording to make this more clear here.
    • Similarly Cairnpapple Hill. Pottery bowls and stone axe heads indicate rituals in the early period - is Cairnpapple Hill the place where these things were found; if so, make it Pottery bowls and stone axe heads, unearthed at Cairnpapple Hill
 Done
    • The remains of a temporary camp that produced more than 3,000 artefacts, including about 300 stone tools and fragments - the archeological dig produced these things; we have no way of knowing how many items were produced by the camp itself, presumably some number well above what was found.
 Done
    • The Jura entry gives a date include "c.", presumably indicating it's approximate. But all the dates must be approximate. Is there something unique about the Jura find? If not, better to make the column head say "App. date" or something similar.
 Done The original reference was somewhat vague, but just '6000' will do now.
    • Scotland was still glaciated when the cave paintings of Lascaux in France were created, circa 14,000 BC. - so?
The "brief scene setting introductions to each section" attempt to provide a snapshot of Scottish finds in a wider context. Thus, Orkney could make a claim to be the home of the most advanced society in the world in the Neolithic, but in the Bronze Age, Scotland becomes more peripheral. In the Mesolithic, the climatic challenges mean that Scotland makes a slow start and on the face of existing evidence is a rather backward society. It is this idea that I am rather clumsily attempting to explain. I have attempted some additional explanatory wording.
    • portray a radical departure from hunter-gatherer societies and the emergence of complex societies capable of creating substantial structures - awkward, as it sounds like they're departing from both the hunter-gatherer societies and the emergence of complex societies.
 Done
    • Although some large stone structures continued to be built, from 2500 BC there was a decline in both the creation of large new buildings and in the total area under cultivation. - this is really awkward for at least five reasons
 Done I have amended this and added and additional reference.
    • chambered well at Burghead was discovered in 1809. It is a structure that is unique in a Scottish context - pronouns should agree with the previous noun they agree with in number or gender, which would be Burghead, which is not a structure (or maybe 1809, but either way, it's not right).
 Done

First pass of replies above. Will return to the rest asap. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few more done. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I think that is all the above attempted. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 17:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Though I note there's still a few incomplete sentences that I'd like to see fixed, I can now support. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for you assistance and support. I have tidied up the 'incomplete's mentioned above. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 17:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Not well-written, on my initial sampling. Opening: "This timeline of prehistoric Scotland is a chronologically ordered list of important archaeological sites in Scotland before the beginning of written records and of major events affecting Scotland's human inhabitants and culture during the prehistoric period." of ... of ... of. There's grammatical confusion. Sentence is long and complex; I have indigestion. "chronologically ordered"—is that "chronological"? Inhabitants and culture? "during the prehistoric period (I'd want a rough idea of when if you're talking "period" here)—why not "prehistoric" human inh ...
Fix attempted. No excuse - reason was re-wordings requested above led to confusion rather than resolution. Part of the problem is (I now suspect) a clash of GB and US English. In the former, 'prehistoric' generally seems to pertain to the human condition only, but I am not sure about this yet.
 Done hopefully.
  • At random, I picked: "Scotland was still glaciated when the cave paintings of Lascaux in France were created, circa 14,000 BC. Human settlement thus began later in Scotland than in southern Europe,..."—"thus" is a little presumptuous: will our readers already know when human settlement began in southern Europe?
TufKat queried this too, and I must be missing something. Is it wrong of me to assume that readers will understand that: a glaciated country has no inhabitants; that France is a fair way south of Scotland; that Lascaux is world-famous for prehistoric paintings? I will spell it all out if need be. Will also look for other sentence structure problems.
I have amended this a little, which hopefully makes it clearer.
  • En dashes for page ranges in the bib. Not mandatory, but minimum two-digit closing range is better. Ref 17: really no apostrophe in their title? Refs need an audit.
Have attempted but will go over again asap. One day I will discover why '&ndash' is so popular. I have looked at Dash, but I may have nodded off. I didn't grok the comment about two digits, but I think it means 33-34 is better than 33-4. Will fix.
There is no apostrophe in the title in this reference, although one is used in some other references to the project.
'Two-digits' issue also looked into. I'll look at it all again tomorrow as well.
 Done hopefully.

Fasctinating topic, but this needs work, Ben. Tony (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC) PS refs full of inconsistent formatting.[reply]

It is an interesting topic and I have resisted the temptation to enlarge on mysteries such as 'what happened to the Balbirnie people, for whom we don't even have a name. Were they the escapees of rising sea levels whose advanced culture is unknown to us? How and why did the megalith builders eventually succumb? Not to mention the amusing Tollmann's hypothetical bolide idea.' Back to the work, however. Barkis is, as ever, ..... Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comments by Orlady
  • Why does the section on Bronze and Iron Ages say "The Neolithic monumental culture spread south from northern Scotland into England"? Was your intention to present a contrast between the direction of movement in the Neolithic and the direction of cultural movement in the Bronze and Iron Ages? If so, the passage needs rewording.
 Done It was my intention and I have re-ordered the sentences in an attempt to make it read more smoothly. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 12:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Bronze and Iron Ages section, I find no information on the timing of the Iron Age. (Are there archaeological sites that are identified as "the first evidence of bronze manufacture in Scotland" or "the first evidence of ironworking in Scotland"?)

--Orlady (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky this. In theory the 'Iron Age' was still trundling on in north and west Scotland centuries after the arrival of the Romans in the south, and as it says in the intro the later periods are very unsatisfactory. I'll look into this again asap.
First of all, thanks for adding the additional links.

(Unindent) The problem with these transitions is that the nomenclature itself is misleading. The idea of the 'Bronze Age' is one that prehistorians use "as a handy tag rather than a description of any general reality" (Moffat p153). Copper artefacts were being used in the late Neolithic. The earliest evidence of the assumed existence of a 'Bronze Age' is the change over to cist graves and the Beaker type pottery c. 2000. According to this Jarlshof, which spans the Neolithic to the late Iron Age, is the earliest site, but there are several others such as Cairnappaple that were probably inhabited continuously. The earliest dated cist burial I know is at Kilmartin circa 2200BC, but again the site was used for centuries and the transition is gradual, not abrupt. The Inverness find may well be the earliest metal work. There was 10 inch long bronze blade found in Fife in the nineteenth century of a similar age, although as no-one is now sure exactly where it was found, it has not been dated. Another very early find is a wooden yoke dated to 1950 BC - again not exactly a dramatic step-change. Note also this Scottish government press release about an important Bronze age find. It is a flint arrowhead and to the lay person much the same as the Islay one from 8 millennia earlier.

 Done Having said all that I have found a decent date for Migdale which hopefully does the trick for the early Bronze Age.

For the Iron Age Understanding the British Iron Age:An agenda for action notes that "there is no part of Britain where the Iron Age chronological framework is understood in more than outline terms. For many regions even this would be an overstatement, and for some there is no Iron Age chronology at all. Without some chronological backbone, interpretations of the Iron Age beyond the more intensively studied areas cannot progress. Even in regions which have seen much modern work, such as Atlantic Scotland, interpretations are riddled with chronological uncertainties." The brochs are definitely Iron Age, but there is a great deal of controversy as to their origins and there is no defining event or date that marks them out from their Bronze age precursors. I'd like to be more definitive but I hope that the above gives you a hint of the difficulties involved. I will have a further look. I'm going to put in an addition about the first use of a wheel, then I'm off for some Iron Brew. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look through D. W. Harding's 2004 "The Iron Age in Northern Britain: Celts and Romans, Natives and invaders". On several occasions he repeats statements along the lines of 'continual occupation since the second millennium BC' about Iron Age sites in e.g. Kildonan, or in respect of crannogs generally. I can't see anything that appears to be a definitive 'this was where the Iron Age began in Scotland' type of comment. My guess is that if archaeologists could start again we might see something like a Mesolithic - Neolithic - early Metal Age - Celtic - progression for Scotland rather the the current well understood, but rather misleading nomenclature. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Support — Fantastic work by all involved. The present-tense "scene setting" isn't something I would've thought of, but it's consistent throughout the article and works well. The pictures are well-chosen, the descriptions are clear, accurate, and grammatically correct. A spot check of references turned up nothing wrong, and the prose is a fine example of how even an encyclopedia article can be made interesting. The only fault I can find is that two of the pictures: Crannog on Loch Tay and Eildon Hill, overlapped onto the table. Easily one of the finest lists I've ever seen on Wikipedia. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are most kind - it is much improved thanks to the gracious diligence of all above. I have attempted to create the overlap you mention without success, so I am not sure what I can do to fix it. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 12:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Timeline_of_prehistoric_Scotland&oldid=1078814883"