Talk:Glastonbury Tor

Glastonbury Fair

The mystical significance of the place continued into the Middle Ages, when it was celebrated by an annual Tor Fair. Would anyone be upset if I removed this line, here since 2002? Medieval fairs did not celebrate mystical significance. They were carefully controlled by ordinances. The fair being thought of here is the Glastonbury Fair, a rockfest Woodstockish happening in a nearby village, only since 1971. Has anyone a reference to a medieval Glastonbury fair? Wetman 00:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'll remove it now. Philip 20:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Terracing" effects from cattle grazing at Šušara

"Terracing"

Added medieval strip farming as the most likely explanation for terracing on the Tor, unromantic as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcpcpc (talk • contribs) in 2005

I'm going to downgrade that from the most likely explanation to the officially approved explanation. Ancient Mysteries by Peter James and Nick Thorpe is a book reviewing pseudo-scientific theories and the scientific evidence. Their take on this explanation is "no one has examined the evidence critically. The theory is merely assumed, and is not without problems. ... if the terrace system of Glastonbury Tor was built for farming, it is unique, even anomalous. Indeed, the National trust, while it officially prefers the agricultural theory, is, like the excavator Rahtz, respectful of [the labyrinth/maze theory]." GRBerry 15:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to see what is wrong with uniqueness here, since the tor itself is unique, at least within a very large radius. A much stronger argument is the claim in our article that:

Additionally, none of the other slopes of the island have been terraced, even though the more sheltered locations would provide a greater return on the labour involved.

However, from the hi-res satellite images on Google Maps, this claim seems to be false; in fact the terraces circumscribe the island / tor. Equally doubtful is Mann's claim which we quote thus:

Mann, however, observes that if agriculture had been the reason for the creation of the terraces, it would be expected that the effort would be concentrated on the south side, where the sunny conditions would provide a good yield, however it may be seen that the terraces are equally deep on the north, where there would be little benefit

However, as you can see from the satellite image, the axis of the tor does not run east-west, but closer to south-west to north-east. In high summer, the growing season, the sun at zenith exceeds 60°C above the horizon so you can see that the "north" side of the tor will get nearly as much sun in the afternoons, as the "south" side gets in the mornings. Regardless of such arguments, the satellite image also shows that the poor foolish moderns apparently think the growing is alright there, because they have fields and even an orchard as close to the northern boundary of the tor as the National Trust will allow. In contrast the southern edge of the tor is mainly left over to woods. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And here's another strange argument:

A Labyrinth would very likely place the terraces in the Neolithic era (Rahtz, in Mann, 1993),

Erm, what? Turf mazes are very difficult to date, but the earliest known reference to the pattern they usually adopt was from Sub-Roman Britain, and most datable examples are late Middle Ages or even later. The idea that they are very ancient is a Romantic myth. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? Knossos? [1]? Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly no turf maze at Knossos. But in fact the consensus of modern archaeologists is that there isn't a labyrinth of any kind there. The Minotaur / Labyrinth myth may be a later confounding of the bull cult, actual human sacrifices, and the complexity of the palace. But, whatever the origin, there is no real labyrinth there. However, in any case I meant to refer to north European turf mazes. Mann (who is pretty well the sole source that keeps popping up in the google search to which you linked) suggests that the terracing around the Tor resembles a European turf maze, which is kinda-sorta true if you leave your spectacles off and squint just right. However his implication that European turf mazes are of Neolithic origin is a Romantic-era myth, totally unsupported by any evidence. As I already mentioned, it is very difficult to date them accurately, because they have to be constantly re-built to survive. However all the solid evidence we have on age puts them back only a few centuries, not millennia. Many of the most famous turf mazes were actually built in the early modern era by known persons: but wait 400 years for memories to fade, and they become "ancient." -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Knossos was a memory lapse. I need to find out more about turf mazes. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The terrace system on the Tor would bear analysis in terms of a medieval Purgatory or Calvary Mount. Its symbolic seven-tiered form would have been worthwhile labour for the monks of the Monastery of St Michael. See Mann, N.R. 2001 and 2004. 29 July 2006

Is there any references that could substantiate a theory that the 7 Tor terraces created an illusion of increased distance for an observer outside the swampy area who is unfamiliar with the territory, thereby making the obstacle swamps seem much greater etc? Tekbasse (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

since when was arthur a celtic hero. he was brythonic which is a much more accurate description by making him british celt rather than scottish or irish.

Height of Glastonbury Tor

I checked the height of Glastonbury Tor with the report of the National Trust [2] which gave the height of the Tor only in metres. I did not find any figures for the prominence of the Tor above the countryside but reversed the order of the measures. This time I did not use the convert template because it gave a reading that appeared to be accurate only to the nearest 10 feet. Michael Glass (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Glastonbury Tor in popular culture

This article was AfD'd in September and closed with a result of a merge. The merge was never done, so I went ahead and redirected the article here. I didn't reintroduce any of the material because all of the points appear too trivial for an encyclopedic understanding of this subject. If anyone wants to develop a cited and relevant "in popular culture" section you might want to view the history of the pop culture article as a place to start. ThemFromSpace 19:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Good decision. --Simple Bob (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this section is no more. However, with a representation seemingly of the Tor [+ Glastonbury Thorn] featuring heavily in the 2012 Olympcs Opening Ceremony does it deserve to come back?2.31.101.204 (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

picture

Why is the main picture one of the tor during maintenance? surely someone has a better photo than that?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.197.224 (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Not an island

How come this article is within wikipedia project islands? How to take it off the list?

John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Mon 16:44, wikitime= 08:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It's there because it used to be an island. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well it's not one now, although it sits on one - Great Britain. I don't see Gondwanaland on your list. Perhaps there should be a new category - Places_that_used_to_be_something_other_than_what_they_are_now

John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Mon 22:42, wikitime= 14:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hi Rod, I had a go on the first section and have tried to fix some of the wording based on what you have put (which may need to be checked for accuracy). I have removed a tiny amount of POV and an overlink. Paragraphs should end in a citation; it pains me to add the ugly tags, but it looks like you have the sources, so these shouldn't last all that long. I have left you some hidden comments and will watchlist the page, so no need to add those blasted talk page reminders on my talk. On the whole, it looks ok, and I'm happy to work one section at a time. I would like to think Eric will be following on from me and fixing anything that I get wrong. Happy editing! -- Cassianto^Talk 22:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks your copy editing has certainly helped. I've dealt with a few hidden comments by rewording to (hopefully) make the meaning clearer, and added some references. The next section on terraces I've added some citation needed tags previously as these are for claims (about livestock erosion and the effort involved in defensive rings) for which I can't find sources, and have left from the previous text - can anyone help?— Rod ^talk 20:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have completed part two. We need to determine who said what and when. All the best! --Cassianto^Talk 21:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. I find your hidden comments and questions very helpful in identifying what is unclear & hopefully these have now been addressed (C3rd BC = Ralegh Radford while Dark Ages = Philip Rahtz for Ponter's Ball Dyke).— Rod ^talk 21:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Gald to help. More tomorrow I hope! -- Cassianto^Talk 22:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Rodw, I left you a hidden comment on the "Terraces" section. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting article, i'll try to help a bit with reference formatting and minor prose stuff. But will leave the big topic questions to the experts :). GermanJoe (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(Not that I'd claim to be an expert - I've just read a lot about it & visited a few times) Re Ramparts- I don't quite understand the hidden comment - It has been suggested that the terraces were created as a form of Rampart (which is normally done as bank & ditch), but on the Tor the bank and ditch doesn't exist (and probably never did) therefore other sources say this could not be the explanation. Does that make sense? Rampart is normally linked to Defensive wall but in this occurrence there is no wall so I'm not sure what to link to.— Rod ^talk 12:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Its ok, I get it now. I have edited it and tweaked the prose a little to make it more understandable. Get back to me if this is wrong. -- Cassianto^Talk 12:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - looks fine to me.— Rod ^talk 14:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on the Christian settlement - sorry it is confusing. Having checked the Rahtz and Mann books both churches (10/11th Century & 14th century) were dedicated to St Michael. There is no mention of the glass and tiles in the 14th C church coming from the earlier church - just the foundations. I am still looking for a source for the claim about seismic activity being amplified. If I can't find one I will remove that claim.— Rod ^talk 17:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Terraces and Nicholas Mann

Why are we using Mann so much? We've got Mann, John Michel and Geoffrey Russell suggesting that maybe there was a neolithic labyrinth pattern on the Tor. Of course we have to ignore the link to Caerdroia which says "In medieval times a Caerdroia was a turf labyrinth" and Labyrinth#Medieval labyrinths and turf mazes to assume neolithic, and the fact that " given the amount of occupation since then, there may have been substantial modifications by farmers and/or monks and conclusive excavations have not been carried out" is linked to Hutton who does discuss the possibility of a prehistoric maze but then says "A third interpretation of the terraces is that they do indeed represent a spiral walkway, but of medieval date and constructed for pilgrims ascending to the church on the summit; such ritual pathways, linked to the Stations of the Cross, are used to this day in Roman Catholic countries. Fairly similar concentric terraces may be detected around the famous Anglo-Saxon monastery at Whitby in Yorkshire." Rather selective I'd say. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That whole section does open with "Their formation remains a mystery". Most authors seem skeptical about the labyrinth, but because so many have included the idea I think it needs to be included in the article. How would you suggest it should be improved?— Rod ^talk 19:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably base it as much as possible on Hutton, a respected academic (and a Pagan). Dougweller (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have Huttons book but have looked at the pages from Chapter 3 which are available in full text on Google books and still fail to see quite what you are suggesting as a revision. Do you think more weight should be given to the theory of a medieval walkway or am I missing your point?— Rod ^talk 13:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

On page 79 Hutton discusses the possibility of a prehistoric maze. While pointing out that Rahtz found nothing Roman or prehistoric at the top of the Tor, and that there are no securely dated pre-Roman mazes or Labyrinths in northern Europe, he also notes that construction of the monastery meant digging out "a large section of the summit of the Tor", that there may in fact be prehistoric mazes in northern Europe, and that Neolithic spirals are found in the British Isles. He also notes that medieval land hunger in the area might have been great enough to justify terracing.

He gives a third interpretation - "a spiral walkway, but of medieval date and constructed for pilgrims ascending to the church on the summit; such ritual pathways, linked to the Stations of the Cross, are used to this day in Roman Catholic countries. Fairly similar concentric terraces may be detected around the famous Anglo-Saxon mon- astery at Whitby in Yorkshire. The only secure way to date the feature at Glastonbury Tor would be an extensive excavation of the hillside, and such a procedure would be very expensive indeed. The one certain conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that the terraces were made by humans; differential erosion of the hill by natural forces could not have produced them.60 Even more than Ponter's Ball, the Tor 'maze' remains a puzzle."[3] Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you draft a paragraph on this and add to the article?— Rod ^talk 15:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added a sentence suggesting this theory.— Rod ^talk 12:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Geology question - contradiction with Blue Lias?

I know little about geology, but maybe someone knowledgeable in geology can check this one: "Blue Lias" is explained in parentheses as "Jurassic sandstone", however both the Blue Lias article and the used reference #13 seem to contradict that and describe Blue Lias as a limestone (and clay) formation. On first glance it seems only the parenthetical info is wrong and should simply read "Jurassic limestone". Also, ref #13 is a huge PDF with 323 pages and could use some more specific page numbers for the sourced information. GermanJoe (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The parenthesis certainly seems wrong. Does anybody here know of any geologists on here? Maybe a nominator for one of these could help? Cassianto^Talk 22:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm no geology expert so I have asked User:Geopersona who has previously helped with Geology of Somerset to help. I have added a page no for ref 13.— Rod ^talk 12:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It's described as 'Upper Lias sands' in various sources, eg this old one[4] but a more recent source, National Trust Glastonbury Tor Conservation Statement, says a bit more: "The hill is formed of Jurassic strata, which are almost horizontally bedded. This rock explains the Tor's existence eroding more slowly than the surrounding clay. The lowest ground eg The Lynchets, is on Lower Lias clay with some limestone horizons; slightly higher ground is on the Middle Lias silts and clays, while the main part of the hill consists of Upper Lias clays capped by sands known as Tor Burrs." But the website which holds this page isn't a reliable source, so I'm not sure about using it (which I see we do). Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the link you intended for the NT conservation statement is this one (rather than the archived book). I used it as I would consider the National Trust a reliable source on this - the fact that it is not available on their website is a disadvantage, but I wouldn't have thought should exclude its use.— Rod ^talk 14:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rodw for notifying me of the conversation. My key sources for British geology are the 1:50,000 map series published by the British Geological Survey of which i'm fortunate enough to possess many copies, though sadly not sheet 296 'Glastonbury'. However a resource which has become available in recent times is BGS's online geology viewer which is accessible at http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html and, once you've typed in Glastonbury Tor you'll come up with the latest official divisions of the stratigraphy. The tor itself proves to be formed from rocks assigned to the Bridport Sand Formation, itself a subdivision of the Lias Group. The Blue Lias is the lower most part of the Lias Group and does not form a part of the tor though presumably underlies it and the surrounding lowlands at depth. Follow up links for the Bridport Sand Formation (at http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?pub=BDS) and you find that it amounts to up to 120m thickness of silts and sand, and with reference to 'calcite-cemented sandstone beds' occurring locally - I'd imagine that's what we have at Glastonbury Tor though it doesn't expressly say so - it would certainly account for this isolated upstanding hill, being more resistant to erosion than surrounding areas where the sands are less well-cemented. Old and local names abound for parts of the Jurassic rock sequence and are potentially quite confusing! There's plenty of info on the Blue Lias Formation at http://www.bgs.ac.uk/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?pub=BLI by the way. I'll see if I can find more and add something to the article though others are welcome to do so of course! cheers Geopersona (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I followed the link to http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/17270/1/OR12032.pdf and found that this document states that the tor is made up of Bridport Sand Formation on Beacon Limestone Formation on Dyrham Formation; in conflict somewhat with parts of the sentence which precedes it. Trouble with references generally is that, at first glance - and especially if you don't have access to them - you never know how much of the preceding material they actually relate to. There is another pdf (RR/99/01 downloadable from BGS's website) of a research report which provides a descriptive framework for the Lower Jurassic of England and Wales which gives further background detail on the sequence. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources - particularly the map (I got distracted into looking at Brean Down, Brent Knoll and some others), but I can't see a way to link to a particular section to use it as a reference. Can we arrive at a consensus on words to describe the geology of the Tor?— Rod ^talk 08:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Leaving aside any changes to the matter of the spring, about which I have no information, one might adjust the material to read . . . The Tor consists of layers of various Lias Group strata of early Jurassic age, the uppermost of which are the rocks assigned to the Bridport Sand Formation and which overlie strata of the Beacon Limestone Formation and Dyrham Formation, The Bridport Sands have acted as a caprock protecting the lower layers from erosion. The iron-rich waters of Chalice Well, a spring, flow out as an artesian well impregnating the sandstone round it with iron oxides that have reinforced it. Iron-rich but oxygen-poor water in the aquifer carries dissolved Iron (II) "ferrous" iron, but as the water surfaces and its oxygen content rises, the oxidized Iron (III) "ferric" iron drops out as insoluble "rusty" oxides that bind to the surrounding stone, hardening it.

Something like that? cheers Geopersona (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Perhaps GermanJoe & Dougweller will comment and then move it into the article.— Rod ^talk 17:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine for me aswell, thanks for your help, Geopersona. Maybe the last sentence with details of the geological process would be better put into the caprock article as another example? For a layman, it seems a bit too detailed here. Aside from this nitpick a great suggestion. GermanJoe (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of further comments I have replaced the relevant paragraph in the article with the text as suggested here. Thanks.— Rod ^talk 12:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

References

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A great topic; definitely worthy of GA status. Happy to offer some thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "a Scheduled monument" Why the capital S?

• Changed - I think this is a hangover from Scheduled Ancient Monument - which was a special term - doesn't seem to be any more.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "from the Iron Age to Roman eras." And then nothing afterwards? I know you continue in the next paragraph, but this is jarring
• What do you mean by "early medieval periods"? Worth linking to Early Middle Ages?

• Linked.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "several times. Several" Repetition. And again in the next sentence

• Changed (several times)— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "At this time" At which time?
• I think Glastonbury, Glestinga and burg are words as words, so should be italicised. Also, the link on Glestinga isn't particularly useful, though I think it would be a valuable link elsewhere.

• As far as I can see these are italicised. Do you suggest removing the link?— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Bridport Sand Formation" Why italics?

• Changed.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "and Dyrham Formation,[13] The" Fullstop? It's also not quite clear what all these formations are.

• I've changed the comma to a full stop & added a link to Formation (stratigraphy) as explanation.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "The iron-rich waters of Chalice Well, a spring, flow out as an artesian well impregnating the sandstone round it with iron oxides that have reinforced it.[14] Iron-rich but oxygen-poor water in the aquifer carries dissolved Iron (II) "ferrous" iron, but as the water surfaces and its oxygen content rises, the oxidized Iron (III) "ferric" iron drops out as insoluble "rusty" oxides that bind to the surrounding stone, hardening it." Could this be rephrased? What's an aquifer? Why the capital 'I's?

• This was written by a geologist following an earlier discussion (see talk). I've changed the capital "I"s but what phrasing do you think it should be changed to?— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "low lying" low-lying?

• Done.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "in the Arthurian legend" There's more than one; remove "the"?

• Done— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "of lias stone" Is lias a proper noun?

• Not sure I will investigate.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• On Lias Group it appears to be capitalised. NB User:Eric Corbett is now editing the grammar etc so I'm sure it will improve rapidly.— Rod ^talk 20:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "make ploughing for crops easier" Ploughing for crops? Odd phrase.

• "breaking up the ground to grow corps" perhaps - would that be better?— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "the north, which" north side?

• Changed to "northern side".— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• " none of the other slopes of the island have been terraced" What slopes? What island?

• It used to be (more or less) an island when the levels were covered in water for part of the year.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Alternatively the flattened paths may have been produced by the hoofs of grazing cattle." Comma? Isn't the plural hooves?

• "hooves" used - where does it need a comma?— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• " Other Iron Age hill forts" Why "other"?

• Because we are comparing the Tor with other hills.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• " However, the normal form of ramparts are a bank and ditch, however there is no evidence of this arrangement on the Tor. Additionally, South Cadbury, as one of the most extensively fortified places in early Britain had three concentric rings of banks and ditches supporting an 18 hectare enclosure. By contrast, the Tor has seven rings and very little space on top for the safekeeping of a community." Difficult to follow?

• However and Additionally removed - is that better?— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• " Interpretation of the dyke is not clear" What does this mean?

• Archeologists and historians don't know why it was built.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "the Dark Age occupation on Glastonbury Tor. The 1970 excavation suggests the 12th century or later." What occupation? What excavation? Is occupation really the right word?

• I think occupation means humans living there - as opposed to just visiting

• "Hutton suggests" Who?

• I've added "The historian Ronald Hutton...— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "throughout human prehistory" Hardly!

• Changed.— Rod ^talk 20:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "what was an easily defended island in the fens" We need more of a description, here- this was an island?

• I don't understand this one.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "dedicated to St Michael" Link

• Done.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "from which post holes have since been identified" Odd

• Why odd, 20th C excavations have identified where the post holes were.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Monastery of St Michael on the Tor" Why italics?

• I think this was as a special name - but now removed.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Post dissolution" Post-dissolution?

• I've never been good at whether these things should be hyphenated. Do you mean in the sub head? I can ask for advice on this one.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hyphen added.— Rod ^talk 20:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm left feeling that there should be more about the tower itself, as this seems to be the article about the structure as well as about the hill. I also wonder whether the history section should be moved to before the geography section; it's of more historical interest than geographic interest, and knowing the history will help in understanding the geography. I still need to take a proper look at the sources and images, but this will hopefully give some pointers on what needs to be worked on. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for comments so far. Yes the article is about the tower as well as the hill as they are intimately related - what else would you like to see? I always put geology before human history because of chronology and without the hill there would not have been anywhere for people to built the church etc. I think it is the geology (prominent hill above local lowlands) that helps us to understand aspects of the human activity. I've done some of the above but need to check sources etc & come back to some of the others.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Ok, just taking a look at the references;

• "The Tors of Dartmoor". Legendary Dartmoor. Retrieved 27 October 2013. - Surely we could easily find a better source for the etymology than this? If not, I'd question its accuracy!

• Others refs added - any of these any good?— Rod ^talk 17:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Glastonbury Tor Conservation Statement". Glastonbury Tor.org. Retrieved 25 October 2013. - Is this needed? We already have another source for the height?

• It does provide other relevant info.— Rod ^talk 17:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Morgan, Vicky (December 10, 2002). "Ponter's Ball Dyke". Ancient Village or Settlement in England in Somerset. Megalithic Portal. Retrieved 12 April 2011. Definitely reliable?

• Replaced with Somerset Historic Environment Record source from County Council.— Rod ^talk 17:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Jump up ^ Michell, John. "The Gigantic Mysteries of Glastonbury Tor". New Light on the Ancient Mystery of Glastonbury. Gothic Image. Retrieved 26 October 2013. Again?

• Added some more (not sure they are any better) + sentence from Huttons latest book (Nov 13) rejecting the theory.— Rod ^talk 17:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Frome Hoard finds new home at the centre of new Somerset Museum". Culture 24. Retrieved 27 October 2013. Again?

• I think Culture 24 is OK as an index of Museums, exhibitions etc (sponsored by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport ).— Rod ^talk 17:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• "2012 Olympic Opening Ceremony Explained". Eternal Idol. Retrieved 27 October 2013. Again?

• Removed - covered by lots of other refs.— Rod ^talk 17:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Introducing Glastonbury Tor". Glastonbury Tor. Retrieved 25 December 2007. Again?

• I've added another ref - si this any better?— Rod ^talk 18:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Caine, Mary. "The Glastonbury Giants". Mary Caine. Retrieved 26 October 2013. Again?
• "The Glastonbury Zodiac". Bad archeology. Retrieved 2 December 2013 Again?

• There are lots of sources but probably all of similar level of reliability. I think this is a problem when dealing with Fringe theories.— Rod ^talk 18:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Unless it's a fringe theory that has been talked about in a decent publication, it's probably not worth including. J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• The source formatting isn't perfect, but that's not too much of a problem for GAC. The only thing I'd say is this- try to keep your book titles capitalised! Somerset Place Names, rather than Somerset place names. (Alternatively, if you'd rather not capitalise them, then that's OK, but consistency is good.)

I'm not saying those sources are definitely unreliable, but it'd be good to check them/replace them if possible. I've no doubt that there are plenty of very good sources out there, so trying to avoid poor ones shouldn't be too hard. If a particular theory can't be found in any good sources, then that does say a lot about the theory... J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

On a quick scan I'd say Culture 24 is reliable for museums & exhibitions etc. I will look at the others.— Rod ^talk 17:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go at most of them but I'm having problems with some of the Fringe theories finding reliable sources. I would be happy to see some of this stuff removed but, because they get widespread discussion, the article would not be comprehensive without them.— Rod ^talk 18:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Only discussion in a decent source really counts- if no legitimate academic (be they historian/geographer/folklorist or whatever) has felt the need to discuss the theory, we don't need to include it, and we can be comprehensive without it. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This has taken me out of my comfort zone looking at sources I wouldn't normally go near, but I've added some references to peer reviewed journals and books. Would you be kind enough to take another look and let me know what still needs further citations?— Rod ^talk 21:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

One good source is always going to outweigh several mediocre ones; having checked the OED, your etymology of tor seems questionable. I'll add the source myself. J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you happy with the refs I added? Thanks for the etymology addition - surprisingly Eilert Ekwall doesn't include it in Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names.— Rod ^talk 20:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to apologise if I'm being so slow here- I want to approach the article in the right mindset! J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries.— Rod ^talk 07:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The labyrinth theory is still supported by what look to be pretty dire sources; the Mitchell book doesn't exactly look scholarly (to put it one way) and Fairy Room just seems to be a fantasy blog. "The Tor came to be represented as an entrance to Annwn or to Avalon, the land of the fairies.[66][67]" and "Another speculation is that the Tor was reshaped into a spiral maze for use in religious ritual, incorporating the myth that the Tor was the location of the underworld king's spiral castle.[66]" are also reliant on questionable sources. Folklore is certainly potentially a scholarly subject, but folklore that no decent publisher has taken account of shouldn't be in the article! I'll have a look around and see what I can find... J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed Michell and Fairy Room & added MacQueen and Bowden-Pickstock for the labyrinth theory. Hopefully these are better?— Rod ^talk 10:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing again

There have been definite improvements, but the sourcing still seems a little worse than it could be, considering the subject matter. So much has been written about the tor by all kinds of academics; for GA status, I really think we need to base the article on better sources.

• I can't access Glastonburytor.org.uk; who runs it? A reputable body/academic?

• Seems to be run by Palden Jenkins see http://www.palden.co.uk/introduction.html & a list of his books http://www.palden.co.uk/books-by-palden.html - not sure what counts as an academic (I've been accused of being one - but it is a nebulous title).— Rod ^talk 19:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• He is also given as the author of this Map of the ancient landscape around Glastonbury.— Rod ^talk 19:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Who is Mary Caine? What makes her personal website a good source? (Again, I'm having trouble accessing the page right now.)

• The text referenced to her appears to have been published in a "magazine"/"journal" called Gandalf's Garden published since 1968. Her work is cited on Landscape zodiac which may be the same as Temple of the Stars - I haven't looked closely at them. Some of Mary Caine's books are on amazon here, here and this one specifically about the "Glastonbury Zodiac.— Rod ^talk 19:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I was willing to let the Glastonbury Abbey site slide, as it seemed to be an official museum resource, but looking at the writing... Again, could this be replaced?

• The sentence cited to the Abbey website - Myths & Legends does have another citation to Palden's Glastonbury Tor site - do you want me to look for another one which mentions fairies?— Rod ^talk 19:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Can't say that I see the Abbey site as an RS, the front page says "Then 2000 years ago Joseph of Arimathea (Christs uncle) is supposed to have brought the young Jesus here. On Joseph's second visit, after Christs death, he built the first Christian church, at Glastonbury Abbey, appointing twelve Christian hermits to look after it." If that's the approach they are pushing, I don't trust any of it that isn't about physical details of the site. Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• How about this one for Annwn & fairies etc?— Rod ^talk 20:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Bad archeology remains. If we really don't have a better source for this claim, it needs to go.

• I've replaced bad archeology with this more academic paper which cites it sources. Better?— Rod ^talk 19:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The rest look OK, I think; moving away from newspapers and towards peer-reviewed journals would be the next step, but, for GA purposes, this should be enough. J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Given a choice between the Archaeology Officer of North Hertfordshire District Council and a paper written for partial completion of an MA in Cultural Astronomy and Astrology , I can see no reason why we shouldn't go for Bad Archaeology. Fitzpatrick-Matthews is an expert in archaeology, an MA student who has probably never studied archaeology or related subjects and has written an essay or short dissertation is not. I'm not sure what the objection is to using an archaeologist as a source. We certainly shouldn't be using this paper on "sacred space as a human construct" as one. Dougweller (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

All of the stuff on myths and folklore is outside my normal sources (see above for my comments on whether some of this stuff fits in Fringe theories so I'd be happy to be guided.— Rod ^talk 20:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; I'm not really keen on citing an MA paper. Properly published peer-reviewed articles and academic books from decent publishers are the ideal; less good but still acceptable are general interest books, newspaper and magazine articles or webpages maintained by reputable organisations. Passable but should be avoided are blogs/personal websites of individuals with some genuine credentials (like having published peer-reviewed work on the subject), but, given the nature of this topic, I don't think we'd need to sink that low. Not acceptable is any fairy magic "release your soul through the power of the zodiac" bullshit, personal websites maintained by people with unclear credentials, or books released through vanity presses. If you can't find any decent sources for a given belief, it doesn't need to be in the article. J Milburn (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

OK I've removed the spiral path stuff due to lack of reliable sources & some other dodgy refs.— Rod ^talk 12:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I know I'm probably sounding like a broken record, but I'm still seeing you leaning on some pretty questionable sources. Bad Archeology is a blog and Mary Caine is a blogger (a blogger who has written some fairy magic books, but that hardly fills me with confidence...). Others aren't ideal, and would have to be replaced before FAC, but they're alright for GAC. J Milburn (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There are loads of other sources discussing the lack of evidence for the zodiac (egs 1, 2, 3, 4) but I would not consider any of them reliable. This may be better but it is always difficult to prove a negative ie that it doesn't exist. It does get a short mention in Rahtz's book for English Heritage and his book with Watts - I will add them & perhaps you could then remove any you still feel are not RS? The comment above from Dougweller suggests that Bad Archeology - even if a blog - is by a reputable source. We could just remove the paragraph about the zodiac theory, but I think this would mean we were not being comprehensive in coverage as so many people have written about it.— Rod ^talk 20:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the difficulty here; I'll have a mess around and see what I can do. As an aside, the Rahtz 2003 source doesn't match anything in the bibliography; I assume you mean Rahtz & Watts 2003, but I thought it best to check. J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Any help appreciated. Yes the 2003 book is Rahtz & Watts, some of the text is the same as the earlier Rahtz book but some new material is included. Unfortunately neither contain much the rebuttals of the zodiac theory just describing it as a myth - although the 2003 book does support the assertion that many of the features used are modern rather than ancient. Interestingly it does include a disclaimer saying that the foundation Maltwood established had funded some of Rahtz's work! — Rod ^talk 18:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had a browse around and a think. Naturally, most archeologists/historians aren't going to bother refuting claims like this- they're just clearly false. Further, the authors of Bad Archeology do seem to seem to be people with some credibility- as far as a self-published source goes, it isn't bad. As for the Mary Caine source... As long as we're clear that the idea's ridiculous, I don't think it's bad as a primary source for what people holding the belief say. If the 2003 book mentions that some of the features are modern, I'd add it in addition to Bad Archeology. J Milburn (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I agree that its ridiculous (as would most) however because some believe & several have written about it we do need to cover it. I've added the Rahtz & Watts book & the ref now works.— Rod ^talk 19:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Bowman source

I've come across a fairly recent scholarly article which lists some of the myths around the Tor. Hopefully, these quotes should be able to cover some of the folklore you've been talking about. J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Bowman, Marion I. (2005). "Ancient Avalon, New Jerusalem, Heart Chakra of Planet Earth: The Local and the Global in Glastonbury". Numen. 52 (2): 157–190. JSTOR 3270462.

p. 178 "But at the foot of the Tor, the chalybeate Chalice Well is sacred to some for its association with the Grail (its red waters rep- resenting the blood of Christ shed for humanity) while for others it is clearly the menstrual flow of the Goddess. Opposite Chalice Well is the calcite staining White Spring, which for a period in the 1990s became "revived" as an ancient Pagan rag well. Some see the proximity of the red and white waters as indicative of the bal- ance of male and female energies (red representing blood, white semen) associated with the Michael and Mary leylines which are said to intertwine at the Tor; for others, as red and white are the colours of the Fairy King Gwynn Ap Nudd, the waters indicate the site of the entrance to his kingdom beneath the Tor."

p. 180. "The Tor is significant to Catholics as the site of the hanging of Abbot Whiting and two monks at the brutal dissolution of Glaston- bury Abbey, while His Holiness Gyalwa Jampa claims that Glastonbury Tor is one of the points where God's will enters the earth (two other such points being the Great Pyramid and the Washington Monument). The Tor is variously regarded as the spiral castle of Celtic legend; a Goddess figure; the Grail Castle; a crystal filled communication beacon for extra-terrestrials; and part of the phoenix figure representing Aquarius on the Glastonbury Zodiac. Some see the Tor as a prehistoric, three-dimensional ceremonial maze, and in typical Glastonbury fashion great claims are made for it"

p. 185. "Ideas of interconnectedness are also embedded in concepts of earth healing, and the ability - indeed duty - some perceive of act- ing locally at significant places like Glastonbury in order to have a global, spiritual impact. His Holiness Gyalwa Jampa, for example, claims that "if holy people go back to holy sites, the site re-awak- ens and the whole earth can be healed" (interview 2 September 2003), and that is one reason he feels he has to be active in Glastonbury. On 16 August 1987 there was the great global project of the Harm- onic Convergence, when hundreds gathered on Glastonbury Tor as people attempted to "activate" sacred sites around the world.7"

pp. 186-7. "No one version of Glastonbury has a complete monopoly, and although the current simultaneity of belief and practice might seem very much a product of contemporary spirituality, I would suggest that it finds antecedents in vernacular religion. For example, there is a story that I have been told on a number of occasions, both in relation to fairy belief and to the Tor, concerning either St. Collen (a 7th century Welsh saint) or more vaguely an Abbot of Glas- tonbury. Baldly told, this Christian was on the Tor when he en- countered two small persons who requested that he returned at midnight, as their lord was keen to meet him. When he met them at the summit of the Tor at the appointed hour, he was suddenly transported into a fabulous palace, magnificently decorated, with fine food piled on golden platters, and full of small people dressed in red and white (fairies). There he met King Gwynn Ap Nudd, who invited him to partake of the feast. Knowing that to eat fairy food would imprison him in fairyland, the Christian declined the offer, drew out a bottle of holy water, scattered it all around him, and suddenly found himself back on top of the Tor. While this tra- ditional tale appears to demonstrate the superiority of Christian power, it underlines a rather important point - that although Christian- ity was in the ascendant, the fairies were still there, literally below the surface."

Same author, different journal: J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Bowman, Marion (2004). "Procession and Possession in Glastonbury: Continuity, Change and the Manipulation of Tradition". Folklore. 115 (3): 273–85. JSTOR 30035212.

p. 280 "A distinctive feature of the Catholic Pilgrimage is that it starts with hymn singing in the Tor Field, followed by a procession from the Tor through the streets of Glastonbury and into the Abbey ruins with the statue of Our Lady of Glastonbury. The Tor is the starting point of the Catholic pilgrimage, in memory of Abbot Whiting and the two other monks who were hanged there at the time of the Dissolution; as one Catholic woman said, "The Tor has particular significance for us." Thus, while there are visually similar aspects between the Anglican and Catholic pilgrimage processions (the carrying of the statue of Our Lady of Glastonbury, the display of banners, and an obvious hierarchy of male clerics), significantly more of the town-from the ruined chapel of St Michael (destroyed by an earthquake) on the Tor to the Abbey ruins-is encompassed by the Catholic pilgrimage than the Anglican one. Both physically and metaphysically, the Catholic pilgrimage might be said to cover more ground"

p. 281. "In the very landscape of Glastonbury some discern the representation of a Goddess figure. They see the siting of the Lady Chapel of Glastonbury Abbey on the area they consider to represent the Goddess's vagina as a deliberate act of usurpation and an attempt to suppress the power of the Goddess. The Tor is seen as one breast of this figure, and the thirteenth-century earthquake that destroyed St Michael's chapel is interpreted as the Goddess simply shaking off this accretion. Some say the Tor itself is a figure of the Goddess, with Chalice Hill as her belly, and the red waters of Chalice Well her menstrual flow. Furthermore, some discern in the contours of the Tor an ancient three-dimensional ceremonial maze. As the 2004 Goddess Conference publicity material..."

p. 282 (continuing from above) "Walking into and out of the Labyrinth in the correct way is an activity offered in connection with the Goddess Conference. I have been told that at the first Goddess in Glastonbury Conference, a group of Goddess-loving women threaded their way up the maze, and within a year some of them were pregnant with a female child. Thus it is now a "tradition" that if a woman wants a female child, she should walk the Tor labyrinth in the appropriate way!"

p. 282 "However, the most obvious tradition connected with the Glastonbury Goddess Conference is undoubtedly the Goddess in the Cart Procession. This procession through the streets of Glastonbury and up the Tor originally included a large effigy of the Goddess (constructed at the conference) pulled in a cart. Each year in rotation a model of the goddess in one of her three aspectsmaiden, mother or crone-was made and then displayed in the most public aspect of the event, the procession on the last day of the conference."

I had previously found and included the 2005 Bowman paper. The 2004 ref is very similar to the book chapter already cited (2008). I've added & rearranged a little bit more of the mythology section. I have not included the menstrual flow or breast of the Goddess - do you think this needs to be included as well?— Rod ^talk 10:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Your call, really. As long as there's some mention of Goddess worship... (sorry, I didn't see you'd already cited Bowman- I just thought it conveniently covered a lot of what we were talking about). J Milburn (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Short para on the goddess added. I wasn't sure on the link Goddess worship is a dab page, but either Mother goddess or Triple Goddess (Neopaganism) might be relevant.— Rod ^talk 11:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I've not read the article in detail, but I assume Goddess movement will about cover it. J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - done.— Rod ^talk 11:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Comment As a quick courtesy, just wanted to you know that this GA nominee is being watched by a rather hostile on-again/off-again editor who happens to write a smug anti-Wikipedia blog. A recent blog post criticised this article, particularly the scientific/geological material in the article. [5]. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

He must be very unhappy when he runs into academic articles or books that don't agree with each other. Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't dwell on this, if I were in your position. J Milburn (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Another read-through

Ok, I'm now convinced that the sourcing is OK for GA purposes. I'm going to have another read through the article, fixing bits as I go, and I'll note anything that needs fixing.

• Now, I know this wasn't written by you, so you may want to contact the author, but the paragraph on the geology is very hard to follow. I admit that I'm not a scientist, but as this is not an article specifically on geology, I'd hope not to struggle so much.

• I've left a note at User talk:Geopersona#Glastonbury Tor. If no response in a couple of days I'll take another look.— Rod ^talk 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I took a look and would agree. Though I contributed to the opening sentences those regarding the Chalice Well are not mine (starting The iron-rich waters . . . and I'm unclear myself what their bearing on the site is. Though of course it may be the opening couple of sentences which are seen to be problematic?! cheers Geopersona (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That's to say, they're not originally mine though I did suggest some tweaks! As to the capital 'i's - that is the notation for different oxidation states of (in this case) iron (as used widely in Wikipedia reflecting standard scientific useage). cheers Geopersona (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Geopersona- if you've some knowledge of the area, could you perhaps trim/expand/simplify as required? Right now, I'm struggling, as a non-specialist, to follow. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I can take another look. cheers Geopersona (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That would be great.— Rod ^talk 22:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made some changes to what is now the second paragraph in the section. For what it's worth, I'd remove the content of the first paragraph to the lead and retitle the section 'Geology'. The fourth pargraph could perhaps also be re-homed. I haven't made any further alterations to the Chalice Well material as I've no access to the reference which is cited. I have presumed that this brief account of iron oxides helps to explain the locally consolidated nature of the Bridport Sands which form the harder upper parts of the hill but which elsewhere are, it seems, less durable. But I don't know that. cheers Geopersona (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've wikilinked strata but think it reads more clearly. Lets wait and see what J Milburn says - but in the meantime can you give a reference for the last sentence of the para "The Bridport Sands have acted as a caprock protecting the lower layers from erosion." which currently stands out (to me) as lacking a reference?— Rod ^talk 08:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand the relevance of the Chalice Well stuff, and struggling to understand the distinction between the Tor and the hill on which the Tor sits. J Milburn (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Tor is the hill, however there is a line of lower hillocks (must be a better term) stretching east to west above the surrounding levels. The Tor itself standing on the westernmost bit of that line. I also think the bit about the water from the well/spring being high in iron is that this binds the soil/rock together making it harder and therefore less likely to erode than the surround soil.— Rod ^talk 13:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the extensive flat Somerset levels are as a whole typically around sea level or just a few metres higher. Out of these flatlands of coastal and estuarine sands, gravels, silts and peat rise 'islands' and 'peninsulas' of higher ground such as the one on which the town of Glastonbury sits. It is upon this hill (which, the Tor apart, rises to around 100m) that the striking elongate cone of Glastonbury Tor (topping out at 158m) sits like a cherry on half a bun on a plate if I may conjure up that image. The Chalice Well stuff does indeed need to be integrated and perhaps the editor who originally inserted it can be persuaded to do that?! cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I've joined the two paragraphs and tried to clarify the iron being significant in the formation of the caprock. J Milburn Does this help?— Rod ^talk 18:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• "In a more recent book, Hutton writes that "the labyrinth does not seem to be an ancient sacred structure.[32]" Speech marks need closing

• Done.— Rod ^talk 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Some Neolithic flint tools recovered from the top of the Tor show that the site has been visited and perhaps occupied throughout human history." No they don't. The neolithic is prehistoric, and neolithic occupation is obviously consistent with it not being the case that "the site has been visited and perhaps occupied throughout human history".

• I've changed it to prehistory but there must be a better way to phrase it.— Rod ^talk 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Once these things have been looked into, I'll go ahead and promote! J Milburn (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Promoting

Alright- this has been a surprisingly long review, but I'm going to go ahead and promote now. While I do feel that the article remains a way away from FAC-ready, I do think it makes a solid good article. In terms of future improvement-

• Aim to have as many of the sources as books from decent presses and peer-reviewed journals as possible. Some of the sources are a long way from ideal.
• Expand. I suspect that there is a lot more to say about the history of the Tor and the church. There's perhaps more to be said about the spirituality and such, but I'd stick to what's been reported in decent sources.
• Aim for more consistent reference formatting. I'm seeing inconsistent capitalisation and unwarranted italics, for instance.

Anyway, they're just some bits to think about if you're aiming at FAC. For now, this makes a decent GA. Great work! J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Joseph of Arimathea

Surprised to see no mention of this chap and his thorny staff: [6], [7], [8], [9], etc etc Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you surprised? Eric Corbett 21:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

See Glastonbury Thorn which is on a different hill.— Rod ^talk 21:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I knew that, but clearly Martin didn't, hence my question. Eric Corbett 21:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, like this TV s'leb, who hosts a certain well-known quiz show. Thanks for the link, Rod. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glastonbury Tor. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029202307/http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes/downloads/Somerset_EUS_Glastonbury.pdf to http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes/downloads/Somerset_EUS_Glastonbury.pdf

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) 08:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glastonbury Tor. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207133345/http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Glastonbury-Tor-s-starring-role-London-2012/story-16609128-detail/story.html to http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Glastonbury-Tor-s-starring-role-London-2012/story-16609128-detail/story.html

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) 08:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)