Talk:Trellech

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


[Untitled][edit]

the village is spealt with 2 l's but dont know how to change it without starting a new article?

The "move" button next to "edit this page" and "history" seems to work fine in this case. --Stemonitis 13:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice local hero[edit]

This extract, from his book Mr. Nice says "We badly needed new destashing premises in England, so Marty rented a farmhouse near Trelleck in Monmouthshire." It's a blog site, however: [1]. But why not go along to The Savoy Theatre in Monmouth on 4 February and ask him yourself: [2]?! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Church of St Nicholas[edit]

As a Grade I listed building, the church is certainly worthy of its own article. The interior has several notable features, including the Royal Coat of Arms File:Trellech 006.jpg the ancient font File:Trellech 011.jpg and the sundial File:Trellech 005.jpg. I have added images of these, together with a few others of the church at Commons, but do not want to add any more here to avoid unbalancing the fine existing layout. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only four years late! KJP1 (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean ?[edit]

"....they were aligned on the winter solstice with the Skirrid mountain ..." The winter solstice is a particular moment in the year. The Skirrid, being a mountain, is unlikely to move, so if the alignment of the stones points to the mountain, this will be true throughout the year, not just at the moment of te solstice, innit ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by G4oep (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine this is meant to include a reference to sunrise on the Winter Solstice. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This not necessarily reliable source says they are aligned with sunrise on the summer solstice and sunset on the winter solstice. Not sure where the Skirrid fits in with that. The Roy Palmer book cited as the source in this article doesn't support the statement anyway (I've checked). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I don't think that first claim is possible if all three stones are in a line, is it? Or how are they arranged? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are in a line. Why is it not possible that they line up? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes I found this about Stonehenge: "At Britain's latitude, the winter solstice sunset is only just over two degrees different from the opposing direction at summer solstice. At Stonehenge, the hills to the north east make the sun appear just that little bit later, which means that the two events are even closer than you would find on a flat plain." Is this where Skirrid comes in? But surely, Skirrid is well to the North of Trellech? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and more to the point the land rises immediately north and west of the stones, so I'm pretty confident that it is not possible to see the Skirrid from the stones. Probably best to leave any mention of the Skirrid out from the article, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any RS source which supports the Solstice alignments, regardless of Skirrid? I'll check what Hando says (although he's always keen to include all kinds of myths and legends). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a mention of the Trellech stones on p.53 of this GGAT report, which says that the site "has a good 360° viewshed although visibility at extreme distance is inhibited by the undulating nature of this character area". Nothing about the alignment of the stones themselves, though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a useful source: [3], even though blogish. Hando gives the full Jack of Kent story. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Roman Harold"??!! Phooey. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How very odd. Looks like a better source is needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


After having done some research I have come up with this, which I have posted on the Megalithic Portal site for H's stones...

Measured on the 2 relevant OS maps, and making a correction for the difference between grid North & true N, a line from the stones to the summit of Skirrid (450m, and near Abergavenny) has a bearing of 307.5 degrees.

Using this calculator with a latitude of 51.7deg, http://jgiesen.de/SolsticeAzimuth/index.html

the direction of the midsummer sunset around 2000BC was 310.9 degrees. These figures are close, but not really close enough. Some adjustment could be made for atmospheric refraction, and exactly how sunset is defined (the sun completely disappearing, or just touching the horizon), but these will not bring the figures into agreement. The apparent diameter of the sun is 1/2 deg, so a 3deg error will be clearly noticeable. I am not certain whether Skirrid is actually visible from the stones - though it should be, judging from the OS map (lack of intervening high ground), give or take local obstructions such as trees, etc. If it is visible a sighting of midsummer sunset from the stones would be interesting. An estimate for present-day midsummer sunset is 309.9 deg which is about 2.5deg, or 5 solar diameters N of the summit of Skirrid. It is 1 deg (2 solar diameters) less than the historic bearing.

The alignment of the stones themselves is said to be 72deg E of N, which is definitely not toward the midsummer sunrise or midwinter sunset. The former is at 50 deg, and the latter is the reciprocal (230deg). It seems to me that the question "what do the stones point to" is a vital one, apparently without an answer, but the location of the site might be explicable in terms of a midsummer sunset alignment with Skirrid. G4oep (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, in simple terms, you're saying that if you stand at any of the stones (or really anywhere in Trellech) on midsummers's day, you'll see the sun set behind Skirrid? Well, the summit of Skirrid is quite well defined, so there's not much room for error, I guess. The essential question is obviously, is it visible or would it have been when there were no trees in the way. I thought neolithic sites were more often aligned with sunrises that sunsets? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's about it, but there seems to be a frustrating error. My estimates might be slightly off, though I would not expect by more than 1 degree. But the ultimate test of this idea is to try to see it happen. If the alignment were correct historically, the midsummer sun would set about 2 diameters short of the summit nowadays. There would not seem to be any point in choosing a site which is slightly off; the sense of wonder that this alignment would evoke depends on it being exactly right, and there is no reason why it should not be if that is what is intended. How much error is needed before you discount the idea as merely a near-miss coincidence ? Not very much, I would say; 3 deg seems to be far too much. g4oep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.58.212 (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know how much, sorry. But you are taking WP:OR to a new level! Please don't be tempted to camp over in the field on June 21st with a camera. (I'd warmly advise you to register as a user.) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha - am I gonna be banned ? Here's more ! Disciples of Alfred Watkins will love this .... A line from the stones to the river crossing at Usk (modern - but it doubtless has a history) has a reciprocal bearing of 71.5 deg (i.e. the bridge at Usk lies to the SW along a line indicated by the stones). The figure of 72 deg for the alignment of the stones comes from here: http://www.coflein.gov.uk/en/site/221159/details/HAROLD%27S+STONES%2C+TRELLECH%3BHAROLDS+STONES%3BHAROLD+STONES/ g4oep

You're not going to be banned, unless you try to edit the article to include any of this, or start being disruptive. The likeliest outcome is that we will just ignore you. This is not the place for original research. Start a blog, find a forum, or persuade someone responsible and reliable, with good academic credentials, to publish your thoughts. Then, and only then, will this material be considered. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must remember that the next time I get drunk at The Lion (if I've got a compass handy). But that is a good 10 miles away! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

lol... do I take it these facts (that is all they are - like Newton, I frame no hypotheses) are unwelcome here ? g4oep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.58.212 (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They would be welcome is (a) they were discussed in a WP:RS and (b) all agreed they were relevant to the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. here is some more: The reciprocal of the published 72 deg for the alignment of the 3 stones (namely 252 deg) corresponds to the setting azimuth, at the latitude of Trellech, of a celestial body having declination (i.e. angular position above or below the celestial equator) of -10.23deg, and according to A. Thom (Megalithic Sites in Britain, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1967, pp 97-101), there are 4 other known sites with this alignment, all in Scotland. The azimuths are different because of the different latitudes, but the 5 declinations are all within 0.5deg of each other. Thom attributes the alignments to Antares - a first magnitude star visible during the summer months, south of the equator, and therefore never high in the sky in Britain. The declination would be correct for a period around 1880BC, but is different from the modern value (~ -26deg) because of the precession of the equinoxes. Significantly, the star would have been considerably higher in the sky at the earlier date, and therefore more noticeable. According to Thom, a celestial alignment of this type should have been made more accurate by the existence of a more distant outlying stone, or a distant feature on the horizon. Apparently there is historical evidence of a 4th stone at Trellech, but at present I do not know where it was supposed to have been. I am happier with this explanation than with the Usk alignment, since although both authors have proved to be controversial, Thom has generally survived better than Watkins. Although Thom's idea about the megalithic yard has not found favour, no-one has seriously doubted the reliability of his surveys. These putative alignments to the setting of Antares and to the midsummer sunset makes the Trelech site comparable with the 4-item alignment at Ballochroy, Kintyre, where a direct alignment is to midwinter sunset, and a sideways alignment is to midsummer sunset over a distant peak. This is illustrated on p 142 of Thom's book. The equation relating declination to azimuth and latitude is given on p 17. g4oep G4oep (talk)

Further Thoughts. I was thrilled to find the 4 references to this declination in Thom, since the reason why I studied the book was precisely in the hope that he would mention something of that kind. But on reflection, my enthusiasm has cooled for several reasons.

Why Antares ? It is a bright star, but there are 10 brighter ones in the sky at this latitude. The stones at Trellech are big, heavy things, and I would expect a correspondingly heavyweight reason for a putative alignment. The solsticial sunset over Skirrid is a good one since it can be used as a calendar point, but as at Ballochroy, it could be supplemented with another solar line indicating midwinter in order to divide the year into halves. If the Trellech azimuth were 50 deg this would serve. Antares would be justified if its setting in relation to the sun (perhaps setting at the time of sunrise - similar in some respects to a heliacal rising) indicated a suitable calendar point, but the sun alone would be better for this purpose. Stars (unlike the sun) always set at the same azimuth throughout the year for a given location, so on its own, a stellar alignment has little use. Furthermore, the precession of the equinoxes limits the usefulness of stellar alignments to a span of 1 or 2 hundred years, after which the alignment becomes noticeably imprecise. Solar alignments are much more stable, since they are not affected by precession. Finally, I suspect that the identification of Antares could be criticized on the same grounds as "Long Straight Track" alignments - there are lotsa stars up there, and the likelihood of one being about right is quite high, so if you look for this kind of alignment you are likely to find something which has arisen by chance. The significance of such a finding must be supported by other facts (precision - quite good in this case give or take the precision of the 72 deg figure, brightness of star - not so good, usefulness - undetermined at present). My judgement is that the search for the meaning of the 72/252 deg azimuth is still on. G4oep (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, I can now say that the Cofflein figure of 72 deg for the alignment is completely wrong, and I believe that it has been removed from the web-page. Correspondence with Cofflein staff indicated that this error was due to the OS! I have measured the azimuth to be 46 deg +/-5deg or 226 +/-5, the wide errors being due to the lack of true alignment of the stones. This angle co-relates with a figure of 229 given by Burl (see reference in main text). Given the altitude of the horizon at the site, it is likely that the stones point to the midwinter sunset rather than the midsummer sunrise, 46deg being too small for the latter, but 226 is not too small for the former. Skirrid is not visible from the site, so references to this putative alignment can be ignored, and the Usk idea can now be safely laughed at. I climbed Beacon Hill to look at the distant Black Mountains (Skirrid, etc), and the view is magnificent - much recommended. I noticed that puddingstone is present there under foot, but the old buildings of Trellech are made from quite different reddish-brown fine-grained sandstone - probably more local, but not available in large pieces. There is a Welsh Water pumping station near the stones, probably indicating the presence of a copious spring. I hope no-one will object to my alterations to the main article, which contains some of these observations; the material I have added seems to me to be no less supported by published material than other text which has been allowed. My observations can be verified by anyone who cares to visit the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G4oep (talk • contribs) 08:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to those who have polished the edits I have made. I am pleased that the material I have added has been found acceptable. The full version of my interpretation of Harold's Stones is given here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G4oep/sandbox Some of this material might be suitable for incorporation in the main article, and anyone who wishes to use it to enhance the article is free to do so. The references to Burl & Burgess are those given in the article; full details for Thom's books can easily be found on the net.G4oep (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Wilson article[edit]

"This site was first identified by (the unrelated) Julia Wilson in an article in the magazine Current Archaeology, "A New Location for an Old Town"." Am unable to find any trace on-line. A year might be useful, if not an entire citation. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. This says: "Archaeologists had supposed the lost city lay close to the centre of the present village but Stuart Wilson was convinced differently, and so embarked on his own search for it. Stuart came to this conclusion initially because of clues in the landscape: tell-tale dips and flats, the examination of pottery fragments thrown up in molehills, and also by embracing a theory postulated in 1998 by Julia Wilson (no relation) that the site lay elsewhere from the present village". This says: "Landscape archaeology carried out by Julia Wilson in 1998 (AW38) also suggested evidence for numerous buildings in adjacent fields." I've tweaked the wording a little and added those sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lost City of Trellech[edit]

Text below copied from User talk:Ghmyrtle:

I have already submitted a formal complaint to the Washington Post for their gross inaccurate reporting of my findings at Trellech. Repeating them here does not make an inaccurate report any more accurate, so I will continue to change the relevant material on wikipedia so that it reflects reality. I can hardly have been discredited by archaeologists since there are many reports by professional archaeologists that have worked on nearby housing development sites in and around Trellech that have all verified my theory and directly contradicted the University of Wales theory of Dr Ray Howell that the settlement existed mainly in the village. Several academic papers have been written about my site over the years and Stephen Clarke, arguable the most experienced medieval archaeologists in the country has written a paper summarising his work and completely vindicating mine. Nancy Edwards was quoted in the Washington Post in a way and following a quotes by David Howell that suggested she was discrediting my work. Nancy has confirmed in writing that she had simply told the reporter that she knew very little about Trellech and that he should speak to Ray - hardly a discrediting statement. All of the discrediting statements have come ultimately from the same source - David Howell. He has taken the fact that I proved his father's work (Ray Howell) was incorrect as a personal offence towards him and is making statements that simply do not fit reality. He happens to be a lecturer at Cardiff University and guess what criticism comes from that university. Why? Because the same source has told the people there the same untruths. When I spoke to their society in the autumn I referenced several publications. Their recent quotations show they have clear ignored them; think that to criticise an academic is to belittle - it is not, it is just good science and are clearly on the defensive trying to protect one of their own. The university has also implied that York University is handing out fake degrees in a desperate attempt to discredit me. Ray Howell also stated in a journal in 2006 that I was wrong because the the Times newspaper made a spelling mistake (they spelt burgages as burbages). The discredit attempts are happening because of one man's personal vendetta against me because I dared challenge the established view that his father proposed and having no way else to turn since the evidence is overwhelming in my favour. So you stating that I have discredited by academics is very far from the truth.

Regarding the second part of interfering with other excavations. As I told the reporter I went onto Ray's sites after he had left without his permission to check his results. What I found was a wall he claimed to be medieval was in fact cut from the modern day surface, i.e. it is a modern feature, probably a field drain. To check others work is good science, it is just unfortunate that I had to go to those lengths to do so. The implication from your sentence is that I was damaging archaeological sites, I was not. You also fail to mention that the same field was subsequently dug by two independent professional units, who verified my initial findings and contradicted Ray Howell's work. Their findings are published in the Historic Environment Record held by the Gwent and Glamorgan Archaeological Trust based in Swansea. I referenced that in my changes on the wikipedia page. Your removal of that sentence is a clear attempt to censor that information and will not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.46.120.83 (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I understand your concerns. No-one is trying to censor anything - I was simply trying to summarise, in good faith, what had been reported in what is usually considered to be a reliable source. Now that you have explained your position and the fact that you have objected to the publication, I'm content to let your wording stand, tweaked a little for formatting and with a reference to the Post article as an external link rather than as a reference in the text. Of course, if and when your objections are published or the Post publishes a retraction, we can reconsider the article text then. I will copy this exchange across to the article talk page, which is where further discussions should take place, and other editors may wish to comment there. Perhaps you are aware of it, but I'll just remind you of policy on conflict of interest editing - in particular, not seeking to edit what I assume is your own article. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Trellech. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 23:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Local notables[edit]

I am pretty certain Howard Marks did live in Trellech in the 1970s. He was mentioned here, then got [citation needed]’d, and then removed. Anyone got a reliable source? This mentions it, [4], but it’s a blog. Incidentally, it also mentions Richard Potter (businessman), but we’ve got him down, correctly, as living at The Argoed, Penallt, which I don’t think qualifies as Trellech. KJP1 (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Trellech United Community Council ... stretches from Penallt in the North to Catbrook in the South..." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trellech&oldid=1218485098"