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)

File:Šušaračkokobrdo.jpg

"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)

Template:OdOn 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.Template:Sfn 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.Template:Sfn

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)

Joseph of Arimathea

Surprised to see no mention of this chap and his thorny staff: [5], [6], [7], [8], 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.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Unclear (to me) what the tor is composed of

Lede, second paragraph, starts with

But clay is a substance, while according to its article the Blue Lias is a geological formation. It's not parallel. How can a hill be composed of a geological formation? Is meant "composed of clay and [other] substances typical of the Blue Lias"? Or "Is in [or: part of] the Blue Lias, and is [therefore] composed of clay"? Or what?

Then it starts talking about sandstone.

Clicking on Blue Lias just confused me. The Blue Lias is apparently made of layers of clay and other substances. It's unclear if the tor is made of these layers, or just clay. It's above my pay grade to come up with a fix. But ought to be fixed IMO. Herostratus (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)