Talk:Thornborough Henges

Old, undated, unsigned

It should be noted that Tarmac actually said they had decided not to request to have Thornborough Moor included as a preferred area for quarrying within the next minerals local plan.

Lack of preferred status did not stop Tarmac from applying to quarry Ladybridge and it may well not prevent NYCC from granting this extension, which will last for four years.

Tarmac already own Thornborough Moor, the land that holds the central and southern henges. I'd suggest unless the pressure is kept up Tarmac are extremely likely to try to get planning permission for Thornborough Moor within four years.

I wrote to Tarmac six weeks ago asking them to confirm they had no intention of quarrying Thornborough Moor - I have had no response.

Thornborough Henges is the name given for a complex of ancient monuments dating from the Neolitic to Bronze Age, the complex consists of three henges, at least one cursus, several barrows, enclosures and settlement remains. Most of these monuments sit in the landscape around the three henges that give the complex its name and the campaign against the quarry company is in order to prevent these remains from being destroyed.

Template:Megalith

I've created a new template for megalithic sites, Template:Megalith, as used on Pikestones and Round Loaf. Some instructions on the template talk page, to show how to use it. Cheers! --PopUpPirate 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

orion

history channel asserts that these 3 main henges are representation of Orion's belt esp as the offset of 3rd henge is exactly as the upper right star in the Orion's belt (also rep/g orion belt are 3 pyramids of Egypt) 47.18.43.166 (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)orion

You need a better and a respected scientific source than just quoting the History Channel. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thornborough Henges worlds first Orion complex ref: ufoinfo.com/news/thornborough.shtml

2nd ref: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPsQ78MDvx8 47.18.43.166 (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Mr Orion Sr

Sorry, but these "references" are not scientific views and in the ufo case - fringe. David J Johnson (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This page may get a few more hits after a new YT video on them, which wanders into the Orion correlation. I'm not brave enough to edit myself, as I seldom visit the talk pages.

I think it's fair to say that the original theory about the Orion correlation with the pyramids has been quite well debunked, as the wiki page on it sets out pretty well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_correlation_theory)

I've noted the opening comment above. To deal with the henges, they are exactly spaced measured centre to centre, where as the belt stars of Orion are not, albeit the shorter distance is approximately 98% of the longer. More interestingly, the offset of the Orion belt stars is less than 3 degrees, but the henges are offset by about 7 degrees. Finally there's also issues with the way they are aligned in a roughly NW - SE line, which doesn't match the pyramids or the belt stars seen from earth. That's purely my opinion of course, and I am not a published author.

Could I suggest either:

- that the Orion reference is removed pending an acceptable source to quote

- or that it is amended to indicate a source is required

- or that the article follows a good NPOV, along the lines of "It has been suggested the arrangement of the henges correlate to the three stars in Orion's belt, in a similar fashion to the theory that the great pyramids of Giza do the same. However the pyramid correlation theory has received criticism (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_correlation_theory), and suggestions that the Thornbury Henges correlate are problematic, and currently a fringe theory.

Happy to be guided, corrected, or ignored!

Simon aka Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you also update section "Beltaine"?

Hi, after today's changed, the Beltaine section still (mostly) has its old text. I might be wrong, but wouldn't it be good to change this too, so it no longer would say the henges are in private ownership? Cheers Karl-Heinz Khzimmer (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Khzimmer - A very fair point, which I’ve tried to address with an update. KJP1 (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

THX for that. The article is very cool. :) Khzimmer (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Owner of northern henge

Who is the "private" owner of the third, northern henge? Errantios (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

No idea. You’d need a good source, and even then I doubt it would be appropriate to name them. KJP1 (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

A good source of course, as always. Mayhap a reputable local newspaper. The Yorkshire Archaeological & Historical Society doesn't say, but presumably knows. To my mind, when discussing ownership of a national monument it is inappropriate not to name all the owners. Errantios (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I’d agree. More importantly, I doubt Wikipedia would, Wikipedia:Blp. The thing about scheduled monuments is that they are pretty common, with about 20,000 across the UK. While I grant you these are up there with the best of them in importance, I’m not sure that naming otherwise entirely non-notable private individuals, merely because they happen to own the land on which a monument stands, would be appropriate. None of the, extensive, coverage of this story I’ve seen to date, sees fit to name them. KJP1 (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As I said: when discussing the ownership. A partial transfer of ownership from private hands to safer public hands is the current issue regarding this monument. The story raises the question of ownership of the remainder. That the private owner here is not being named may just be because the effective owner is difficult to discover, maybe under a nest of companies or trusts.

On the general point, whether ownership of a national monument should always be stated, I think it should. To declare something a national monument is to state a national interest in its condition, which can conflict with the interests of a private owner and heritage regulation of private actions may not be adequate. It is therefore important to note whether a monument is privately or publicly owned. (But this is getting away from the article.) Errantios (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It’s perfectly possible, as this article does, to note public and private ownership without naming the private owners. Personally, from looking at Google Earth, I think the owner of the third henge is likely a farmer, rather than a nest of trusts. Although many large estates do use trusts. In the hundreds of articles I’ve written on listed buildings, I’ve very rarely named, or known, the owners. I think your interpretation of “national monument” is perhaps a bit grander than the reality; Historic England’s database includes over 400,000 entries, including scheduled monuments/listed buildings/parks/battlefields/wrecks etc. Anyways, as you say, we’re getting a bit off topic. KJP1 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)