Jump to content

Talk:Cadbury Castle, Somerset

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The South Cadbury article really needs to stay, but only for information concerning the village. All archaeological information concerning the hillfort site should be transferred here. Walgamanus 23:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

location: northeast of Yeovil?

[edit]

Should the line "Cadbury Castle is located five miles north west of Yeovil . . ." be changed to Cadbury Castle is located five miles northeast of Yeovil . . . "? http://maps.google.com/ shows the 'Castle' northeast of Yeovil. Fdrcomehome (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken a look & you are quite right - probably my error. The great thing about wikipedia is you can go right ahead & correct it.— Rod talk 20:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cave?

[edit]

The Ganarew article says this: "The cave has a parallel with Cadbury Castle in that it is a cave within a hillfort. It was first inhabited in the Old Stone Age and is thus older than any other Arthurian site. ref:"Arthur's Cave near Little Doward, Ganarew", by Joe Boyles and Jake Livingston, at vortigernstudies.org.uk" So is there a cave here? That source says that it's open only on Christmas Eve. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any books on Cadbury Castle but Heritage Gateway and Pastscape don't say anything about a cave, and a search of Jstor didn't turn anything up. Google books only has a snippet view and I can't see the context, but Alcock, Stevenson & Musson's Cadbury Castle, Somerset: the early medieval archaeology does contain at least one reference to a cave

The presence of an Early Medieval settlement was originally deduced from the recognition of sherds of A- and B-ware among the finds from nineteenth-century excavations in a cave below the promontory.

As I can't see the text either side of that I can't be certain whether it refers to Cadbury Castle. But Barrett, Freeman & Woodward's Cadbury Castle, Somerset: the later prehistoric and early historic archaeology doesn't seem to mention any caves. Nev1 (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My word that was quick. That's very considerate of you Nev1, to go to such trouble. I was tempted to trim the reference at Ganarew since Joe and Jake seem to be pretty "immersed" in myth amd legend. But their semi-blog site is intelligent and quite well-written. The fact that this site is limestone gave me second thoughts. Your snippet may be enough to provide a lead to more. Even to Christmas Eve opening, perhaps, which itself seems quite bizarre. Many thanks for the info, which I hope may prove useful here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This extract from Geoffrey Ashe's The Traveller's Guide To Arthurian Britain gives details of the Arthur myth and popular link with Cadbury Castle. The penultimate paragraph looks useful. Nev1 (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that must have been Chistmas Eve quite a long time ago! A very good article, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cadbury Castle, Somerset/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 13:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

  • I found the structure of the article a little strange. It starts off with some historical background on hillforts around 1,000 BC - fair enough. We then get a description of the site in the modern day - OK, although this does jar a bit with with 1,000 BC section. The article then moves to the 19th and 20th centuries for a description of the excavations, before going back to the pre-1,000 BC period. This began to get confusing, with the history being presented somewhat out of sequence in the subsequent Prehistoric Occupation section as well.
  • The prehistory is then presented, not as a sequential history, but in slightly odd excavation language - the first sentence goes "The earliest settlement was represented by pits and post holes dated with Neolithic pottery and flints." - well, that's what is left of the settlement during the relevant modern excavation, but as a reader, what I want to know is what the earliest settlement was originally, and when it was built. Could this be expressed as "The earliest known settlement on the site was constructed in the Neolithic Period (dates)... etc."
  • We then move from the Neolithic, through the Bronze Age and the whole of the Iron back, cut back to 400 BC, and the construction of the hillfort (which seems at odds with the decision to have the background section discussing the 1,000 BC period), through to AD 43 and the Romans, and then back to the pre-800 BC Bronze Age period in the next paragraph, before cutting back to AD 43 in the next para.
  • What I'm wondering is if it would be possible to restructure this so that it ran chronologically? e.g. "During the Neolithic Period... During the Bronze Age... During the early Iron Age before the castle was built... The building of the castle... The Roman invasion... The post-Roman period... Modern archaeology and the castle today"? I suspect it would make it much easier to follow.
  • There are also odd statements like "A report of the prehistoric and Roman activity identified by Alcock's excavations was published in 2000 which somewhat modified his earlier conclusions." - um, what earlier conclusions? I don't think the article has mentioned any yet. Starting some of the sentences with the dates of the publication (e.g. "In the year 2000, English Heritage published a monograph...") probably doesn't help either, as it draws the attention to that date, rather than the facts and dates about the castle that appear at the end of the sentence.
  • "later prehistoric and early historic phases of occupation at Cadbury Castle. Presenting finds from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age" - is the early Iron Age prehistoric or early historic? In the article, it is listed under prehistoric, but this suggests that it is historic (NB: I think historic is correct, btw). Hchc2009 (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to restructure the article to address your concerns. Could you take another look and see if you feel this is more appropriate?— Rod talk 10:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's now easier (IMHO) to read, although I still find the archaeological survey descriptions in the middle of the Bronze Age section distracting from the main narrative... Hchc2009 (talk)
  • "have carried out geophysical surveys, test pits gradiometry, electrical resistivity tomography,[10] ploughzone sampling,[11] test pits,[12] deeper excavations[13] and geographic information system (GIS) approaches." - aren't gradiometry and tomography forms of geophysical surveys?
  • This website gives some specific interpretation of the Neolithic encampment and some more background on the burial of the shield.
  • "There was significant activity at the site during the late third and fourth centuries, which may have included the construction of a Romano-British temple.[32] Havinden states that it was the site of vigorous resistance by the Durotriges and Dobunni to the second Augusta Legion under the command of Vespasian.[33]" It certainly wasn't the site of vigorous resistance to Vespasian in the 3rd/4th centuries, as he was a 1st century Emperor! I think this is misleadingly out of sequence... Hchc2009 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between 1010 and 1020, the hill was reoccupied for use as a temporary Saxon mint, standing in for that at Bruton." - what is the source for "temporary"? I ask as I can't see this in the available references. Similarly for Bruton; I've seen Ilchester, but not Bruton so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

  • There are lots of references to reports on the defences, and odd mentions of ramparts and gates, but I couldn't see any substantial description of what the hill fort's defences would have actually been in this article, which felt like a gap. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a Bronze Age or Iron Age specialist, so my apologies in advance for any errors here. I've read through the English Heritage "Cadbury Castle, Somerset: The Late Prehistoric and Early Historic Archaeology" report (it's 400 odd pages, so Ill admit to skim reading some of the reports!), some academic reviews of Leslie Alcock's "Cadbury Castle" and a variety of the web-based sources. On the basis of this, I'm not sure the article is fully capturing the main archaeological/historical points yet.
  • Pages 319-324 of the English Heritage report give a pretty clear description of the transition of the site from an unfortified agricultural settlement to the later hillfort, which itself changes in character and design several times. This includes how large parts of the castle site were used, what the interior would have looked like etc. Much of this doesn't come through in the article at the moment. A similar issue then emerges with the Roman and post-Roman century section, which miss some of what we know about the Roman use of the site, the context which Alcock gives to the refortification in the 5th-6th and 11th centuries and some of the details, including the curciform foundations and the probable name of the site in the 11th century.
  • My recommendation would to give the relevant sections a good scrub, at least against Alcock (or Tabor) and the English Heritage report, and double check that the article is describing what we know of the site during the relevant periods. What do you reckon? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a couple of bits from the Barrett (EH) source but have been delayed by having to finish stuff at work before going on leave & will now be away for a few days with no access. I hope to be able to do a bit more next week (before going away again) but apologise for the delay in working on this.— Rod talk 15:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now had a chance to look at Barrett and Tabor and added some additional bits on the defences etc and sorted out the page numbers etc. Is this the sort of thing you were looking for or do you feel something else is still needed?— Rod talk 19:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are still some issues with the sequencing.
  • " Radical revisions of the Bronze Age archaeology on the lower slopes[9] derived from discoveries during excavations and survey work by the South Cadbury Environs Project. Bones recovered from the site have been radiocarbon dated to 3500 and 3300 BC and showed the area to have been very busy during the second millennium BC." there's something wrong here - 3500-3300 BC is in the Neolithic period, not the Bronze age, and 3500-3300 BC isn't in the second millenium.
  • I can't work out from the narrative what was happening in the early Bronze Age (Cadbury 3, I think, in phase terms)
  • When was the first earth bank erected? At the moment it is only dated to the Iron Age, but I think the sources are more precise.
    • Which source are you looking at?— Rod talk 20:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is cited in the article to Barrett, who has the first earth bank being erected at the end of the Early Cadbury period, i.e. around 300 BC, rather than just in the Iron Age. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added this in but I'm not sure I'm thinking of the same passage as you "A bank under the later Iron Age defences, which were constructed around around 300 BC, is likely to be a lynchet or terrace derived from early ploughing of the hilltop."— Rod talk
  • "During the first century BC additional lines of bank and ditch were constructed turning it into a a multivallate hillfort which is now known as the castle. Large ramparts and elaborate timber defenses were constructed and refortified at least five times over the following centuries." - I don't think the sequencing of the second half of the sentence is right: are you sure that it was refortified at least five times after 100 BC?
  • Some of the sources (e.g. the Listing) talk about addition fortification work (rebuilding the rampart several times) in 400-200 BC, which isn't mentioned at the moment (unless I've missed it). Hchc2009 (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry again for the delays, I got back from holiday a couple of days ago but have had a lot to sort out. I'm unclear exactly what you are suggesting for the first earth bank and refortification etc.— Rod talk 20:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Large ramparts and elaborate timber defenses were constructed and refortified over the following centuries. Excavation revealed round and rectangular house foundations, metalworking, and a possible sequence of small rectangular temples or shrines,[19][20] indicating permanent oppidum-like occupation." - are you sure that this is in the right place in the article? It seems to run counter/not mesh well with the description in EH document (pp.x). Hchc2009 (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

  • There is also a reference to him being involved in writing a book about Exeter in 1935 I think. As it stands, the tag isn't valid though, as there is no date of death, and - given his activity in the 1930s - there is no particular reason to believe he must have died before 1945, the current cut-off point for the life+70 rule (e.g. if he was 20 in 1890, he could easily have lived to be aged 75 in 1945). Hchc2009 (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have sent an email to VCH asking if they can help 1) identify the full name & date of death of C.H.Bothamley or 2) otherwise indicate that the sketch plans are now public domain.— Rod talk 09:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rod. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Query

[edit]

It's been twelve days since the last comments here and the last edits to the article. Hchc2009, Rod, what is left to do on/for this review? From what I can see there may be an unsolved issue with the image copyright; anything else outstanding? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did put a message on User talk:Hchc2009#Talk:Cadbury Castle, Somerset on 6 Sept asking if there was anything else. I'm am happy to remove the plan as I've not had anything back from VCH having sent them an email in July and not had any response.— Rod talk 19:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some final ce fixes, removed the plan due to the copyright problem, and will pass in a moment. Thanks for all your work on this Rod! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

Under Background, in the last paragraph is says, 'They would be functional as defensive strongholds when there were tensions and undoubtedly some of them were attacked and destroyed, but this was not the only, or even the most significant, factor in their construction.' Unfortunately the other possible/probable factors are not mentioned. This is a major omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.28.119 (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cadbury Castle, Somerset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C.H.Bothamley

[edit]

@Rodw and Hchc2009: I believe the first name of the photographer C.H.Bothamley is Charles H. Bothamley, based on an article on negative-making he contributed to the "Barnet Book of Photography" (1898) [1].

The contents page also gives him post-nominals "F.C.S." and "F.I.C.", which I couldn't find at List of post-nominal letters (United Kingdom).

It seems his address was "The Yorkshire College, Leeds" [2] when he submitted entries for exhibition at the Royal Photographic Society in 1887 and 1888.

Searching FreeBMD for deaths for "Bothamley" from 1930, a "Charles H. Bothamley" died at Lincoln in 1939, aged 79. This presumably matches "Charles Herbert Bothamley" whose birth was registered in Gainsborough in Q1 1860, and who married in Leeds in Q4 1891.

FreeBMD also finds some "Charles Henry Bothamley"s -- one died King's Lynn 1926, aged 67, presumably born Holbeach Q2 1858; one died 1935 in Chorley aged 67, presumably born Holbeach Q4 1867; also one born in Peterborough, Q2 1888 -- but presumably it is Charles Herbert who was the photographer.

There is also a "Cautley Holmes Bothamley" in Alumni Oxonienses [3] who matriculated in 1878 and became a barrister; but who I couldn't find in the FreeBMD records.

I don't know if this is enough to establish a likely date of death for "C.H. Bothamley" -- the FreeBMD indexes are now generally well over 99% complete, at least for UK citizens in the UK, and whose birth marriage or death was registered.

A different line of thought would be that although "C.H. Bothamley" is identified as the author of the chapter in the VCH, the map appears to be professionally drawn, perhaps from the Ordnance Survey. If that is the case, it would more properly be considered an anonymous published work, which would now be out of copyright under the rules for anonymous or corporately authored works in the E.U.

It would be good to take this further, as I believe the map would definitely add to the article. Jheald (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This report from the "Committee on Ancient Earthworks and Fortified Enclosures" [4] (1911) identifies C.H. Bothamley as an F.I.C. (and also not an M.A. of Oxford or Cambridge), so presumably he is the photographer.
Is this enough to declare case closed, and the map out of copyright as either an anonymous work; or as the work of Charles Herbert Bothamley (d. 1939) ? Jheald (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
btw F.I.C. = Fellow of the Institute of Chemistry, I think; and F.C.S. = Fellow of the Chemical Society. Jheald (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Googling "Charles Herbert Bothamley" confirms he is indeed the one: [5], [6], [7]
In 1901, in the census, he was living at 2 St Georges Terrace, Taunton, Somerset, England -- confirming the Somerset connection. Jheald (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all this detective work. File:Cadbury Castle Somerset Map.jpg is on commons so presumably this information should be added somehow (at least the date of death and first names) to the record there along with his other plans (many of which are used on List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset. If he did die in 1939 that would mean 78 years ago.— Rod talk 19:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - nice work! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camalet

[edit]

I have removed the claim that "Camalet" was the historical name for Cadbury Castle. The claim is based on a book of dubious academic quality, published in 1839, in which the author is clearly under the impression that Arthurian legends were historical fact (see pages 46-47). It is clearly not safe to consider this book a reliable source. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cadbury_Castle,_Somerset&oldid=1206504203"