Sweet Track is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 3, 2012, and on June 15, 2017.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 8, 2010 Good article nominee Listed August 7, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Highways: United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force. Somerset Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. British Museum Low‑importance This article relates to the British Museum. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one, as needed.British MuseumWikipedia:GLAM/British MuseumTemplate:WikiProject British MuseumBritish Museum-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Historic sites Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Archaeology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hi,

I believe that it is proper Wikipedia etiquette to anounce the adding of external links to a page in the discussion section, so I thought that I better had.

I've added a link to 'The Willows' at http://www.thewillows-westhay.com The Willows lies at Westhay, just outside of Glastonbury on the Avalon Marshes (next to the Peat Moors Visitor Centre) and provide a good base to explore the Avalon Marshes and other areas of the Somerset Levels. I hope that this is ok.

With Kind Regards Paul

Hello Paul, thanks for your courteous notification on this page and SSSI. You'll see that both the links have been reverted, as they don't fit in with Wikipedia guidelines on external links. But don't be discouraged - why not register for a username and do some more editing- I'm sure you've got plenty of contributions on these topics you can make. Naturenet | Talk 18:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives incredibly precise dates for the track and its precursor. I think the article should describe (if only briefly) how these were derived. Dendochronology? Or did someone find an abandoned copy of the Spring 3806BC edition of the Somerset Times stuffed into a pole hole? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.74.200.66 (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The reference attached to the date of 3807 or 3806 BC explains that tree ring dating can be used to give this level of accuracy see Current Archaeology 172 - Special issue on Wetlands.— Rod ^talk 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing research and update on Road and found your article. I notice that this article has the statement "is the oldest known engineered roadway." but I see in the reference [1] "The earliest of the trackways discovered so far is the Sweet Track." and "it has been claimed to be the oldest road in the world". Claimed being one of the keywords here. So I am going to edit the opening statement a bit. Jeepday 13:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am done. I pretty much did a carry over of what I wrote on road you may or may not want to leave "It has been claimed to be the oldest road in the world" in the statement, next editors choice. Signed Jeepday

I realize the reference explains how it was dated, but I still feel the article should say a word about it. Many people have heard about carbon-14 dating, but dendochronology is not very well known. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely something wrong here or I'm missing something. Dendrochronology on what? The oldest living tree was cut down in 1962 and was no more than 5,000 years old according to this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_%28tree%29 -- so how can dendrochronology date something to be 5,814 years old? DavidPesta 18:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dendochronology can go back as far as there is preserved wood, as long as the trees' lifetimes overlap. Take a tree cut down now: you can see the pattern of rings going back, say, 100 years. Then you find a dead tree and notice that the ring pattern of its youngest 25 years match the oldest 25 years of the first tree. Then you know that the second tree died 75 years ago. By finding lots of samples and matching them you can build up the pattern going back thousands of years, and date any wood against the patterns. You need to take samples from the same area, though, since a hot and dry season in one part of the world might be dark and wet elsewhere. 194.74.200.66 08:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See dendrochronology for details. Also, let me point out that "500 years old" means something different when applied to roads than when applied to trees. On one hand, "a 500 year old road" refers to an event -- the construction of a road -- 500 years before the present, even if it took only a year to build and was in active use for only a few years. On the other hand, "a 500 year old tree" refers to a tree that was living and growing for a continuous 500 years before being sampled, resulting in a piece of wood with 500 annual growth rings -- no matter if it was cut down a millennium ago, cut down last year, or sampled from the still-living tree. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really aught to read the article; or better still the reference given in the article. The Sweet track is a wooden trackway built over marshy land. If there is bark left on the particular piece of wood then you know the "date" that that wood was cut down, i.e. after it was cut down it stopped growing so there are no more date rings.Pyrotec (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The precision being claimed for the date is ludicrous. Even if it were possible to date the day on which a tree is cut down precisely there is no guarantee that they were used to build the track in that year.They might be leftovers fromm houses which had been knocked down. This sort of thing just makes wikipedia look silly and damages the credibility of other, more sensible articles.

Just checked the thoroughly reliable source for this statement. It is accurately represented in the article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly this kind of precision is impossible (and not even talking about the underlying assumption that the construction was a single event in time) and by the way none of the three sources cited for the claimed datation give a precise date. At the opposite, the first source says and I quote : "Archaeologists had thought that the Sweet Track was built between 4000 and 3800 BC, but they could not be more exact". This date must absolutely be removed from the article, even more now that the article has been featured on the main page as it immediatly discredits the seriousness of the whole article. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny; I read: "Now there is a dendrochronology for the English Neolithic, that allows the dating of the Sweet Track in the Somerset Levels – already known to be the oldest trackway in Europe – to the year of its building". This seems fairly conclusive. The quote could be added to the reference without trouble, as it uses the Template:Cite journal, and "quote" is one of the fields. Normally I'd just do it, but I'm a bit reluctant to fiddle while it's on the main page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading about this discovery in Scientific American, where they also explained how they could use dendrochronology to pinpoint the date not only to a specific year, but even to the season the trees were felled. I'm completely confident that this kind of precision is not only possible, it's reasonable. (I don't have a reference.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What are the following supposed to mean?

Core sampling has shown that Meare Pool is filled with at least 2 metres (6.6 ft) of detritus mud, especially in the Subatlantic climatic period (1st millennium BC). The two villages within Meare Pool were formed by laying dried clay over the Sphagnum Moss of the bog.

Neither of the sentences make sense grammatically. In the first sentence the two clauses don't link together - is it supposed to mean that the mud was laid down in the first millenium BC? And in the second sentence - you can't "form a village" by laying dried clay over moss. Were the villages built on a bed of clay laid down over the moss perhaps?

Also in the Conservation section what is a "conditioned area"? Richerman (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving my prose. Ref 8 specifically says "This lake was formed by water ponding-up behind the raised bog between Wedmore and the Polden Hills (Fig. 3), and coring has shown that it is filled with at least 2 m of detritus mud". Ref 9 states "The historic Meare Pool is shown to have originated by the encroachment of the growth raised bogs around it, especially in the Sub-atlantic period". Do you have a form of words which would clarify this?

Ref 10 says "More recent work has shown that these raised areas were on a Sphagnum-Calluna peat bog overlying Phragmites peat with alder and willow (Godwin, 1941; Caseldine, 1986). It seems that the settlements were constructed over small bog humps that were no longer active, but that had ‘‘dried sufficiently to crack and harden’’ (Coles, 1987, p. 235). These deposits, and the archaeological sites, were later overlain by a sealing layer of flooding clays"....."Examination of Meare Village East showed that activity on the raised area was characterized by clay spreads. Occupation appears to have begun on the surface of the dried peat with structures including tents, windbreaks and animal folds. Occupation debris on the site produced a horizon of black earth containing cultural debris. At this time a number of clay spreads were deposited onto the site, presumably from the island to the south (now occupied by the modern village) where the weathered surface of the Lias limestone erodes to form a soft clay-like material (Coles, 1987). Coles also argues that these spreads were probably deposited to provide raised, dryer stands for occupation, industry and movement. Some areas were given thicker spreads of clay to accommodate hearths built of clay or stone, which would have had the added advantage of preventing the ignition of the peat. The clay spreads across the site are very different in nature, 372 H. P. Chapman and R. Van de Noort ranging from thin, path-like spreads to the thicker spreads occupied by structures or hearths. Some even had stone edging or paving." You assert that "you can't "form a village" by laying dried clay over moss" & it certainly wouldn't be how it would be done today, however the cited work suggests this is the case.

In the Conservation section I used the phrase "conditioned area" as this was how the storage area was described by staff of the British Museum. I presume it relates to controlled humidity, temperature etc.— Rod ^talk 08:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you didn't mind me making changes to the prose:)

How about? "Investigation of the Meare Pool has indicated that it was formed by the encroachment of raised bog around it, particularly in the Sub-Atlantic period (1st millennium BC). Core sampling has shown that it is filled with at least 2 metres of detritus mud."

As for the sentence about the villages, how does this sound?

"The two villages within Meare Pool appear to have originated from a collection of structures such as tents, windbreaks and animal folds erected on the surface of the dried peat. Clay was later spread over the peat to provide raised, stands for occupation, industry and movement and some areas were given thicker spreads to accommodate hearths built of clay or stone."

The phrase "conditioned room" really does sound odd. You can have an "air-conditioned room" but "conditioned" on its own doesn't sound right. How about "kept in store, off site, under controlled conditions"? Richerman (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with all your proposed changes - would you like to make them or shall I?. I've emailed the staff at the British Museum for details of what "conditioned" means and am awaiting a reply.— Rod ^talk 07:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add them? I'm just "passing by" at the moment and then going out, so I don't have time too much time and I don't want to mess it up. I have to say that the second reference you gave above is very hard going as it's written in somewhat arcane scientific terms - all praise to you for ploughing through it! Just a couple of other things - the link for reference 9 just takes you to a search page so there's not much point in linking it. Also, if you're thinking of taking the article any further than GA you'll need to put page numbers in the references as it's a bit hard to find which bits of information you've used. Congratulations on an interesting article anyway! Richerman (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've redone them using your suggestions - I will look at the references later.— Rod ^talk 13:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now fixed ref 9 to point to the specific article. All the book refs have pages nos - which other ones do you think need page numbers?— Rod ^talk 19:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more specific - I was referring to the journal articles like the ones above. Of course, the down side is that, if you referenced different pages in an article, you would then have to split up the references into a "Bibliography" and "Notes" section, so maybe it's not worth doing unless you want to carry on expanding the article and progress towards FA. There are some retrieval dates missing too - I'll add them in as I find them. Have you tried using the ref tools gadget? - it makes citing much easier. Click on "Preferences" then "gadgets" then tick "ref tools" under "editing gadgets". It adds a "cite" option to the editing toolbar - sorry if I'm telling you something you know already. I also just found out about a useful template filling tool here. If you put in an ISBN or a PubMed ID it generates the citation for you, although I think you would have to add page numbers manually. BTW, did you notice, there's something a bit odd about the pdf download of reference 9? - the find option doesn't work? If you search for "Meare" it will find the first occurence on the title page but then says there are no more occurences - when obviously there are lots. It looks as if the search is only performed on the first page and not the full article. They must have done something wrong on the Royal Society website. Richerman (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this sentence:

"Radiocarbon dating of the peat in which the axe head was discovered suggests that it was deposited in about 3200 BC,[20] although more recent work has suggested a similar age to the track."

I'm not sure what this is saying. Is it saying the track might be dated to 3200 BC, or the axe head might be dated to 3806 BC? I think it's trying to say the axe head is dated to the same age as the track, but it reads like the track is dated to the same (possible) age of the axe head (3200BC). Green Cardamom (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is discussing the deliberate (votive) deposition of the axe. I read ref 20 as saying that the layer of peat immediately under the axe was dated to about 3200 BC: i.e. The axe was lying on the peat; and since the peat was dated, the axe would not have been placed earlier than that date. The rest of the sentence is saying that the track is of a similar age. So in summary, the track has the "same age" as the votive placing of the axe on the peat. I don't think the axe head itself was dated: radiocardon dating does not work on Jadeite. Pyrotec (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the sentence fragment "although more recent work has suggested a similar age to the track." is un-sourced, source [20] is for the first part of the sentence. What is the "more recent work"? Would anyone object to removing that part of the sentence, since it's unclear what "similar age to the track" means, and there is no source for it? If it's saying the track is 3200 BC, that is a very big statement that contradicts everything else in the article, it shouldn't stay without a source (and expanded upon). Green Cardamom (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your statement: It looks like the sentence fragment "although more recent work has suggested a similar age to the track." is un-sourced. There is no cite provided for it, and ref 20 does not provide verification. Since the article is an FA, such a compound claim needs to be WP:Verifiable. Pyrotec (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead contains two adjacent sentences containing the adverb "largely", which seems a little clunky. Is there any way to change on or the other? "Predominantly" might work, but implies >50% of something. Brammers (talk/c) 08:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about substantially or in the main? Just two from a very quick dip into Roget. I don't think there's a problem with your predominantly, though. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence is unusually precise in its dates; "It was built in 3807 or 3806 BC and ...". Strangely for a featured article, none of the lede section is provided with a reference and statements like "... has been claimed to be the oldest road in the world" are allowed to stand without an explanation of who is making this claim. I would normally request some references be added by putting {{Citation needed}} or {{By whom}} where I thought necessary, but this is today's featured article and I suspect the rules might be slightly different. I thought Wikipedia's standards for selecting the day's featured article were higher than this. Astronaut (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it's all referenced in the main body of the text. The lead is a summary of what's said in the article and doesn't need references. Richerman (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I should have read the rest of the article before coming here with my comment. Astronaut (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article have adverts in it?Keith-264 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any adverts - can you be more specific?— Rod ^talk 15:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adverts: The track was discovered in 1970 during peat excavations, and is named after its finder, Ray Sweet.[7] The company he worked for, E. J. Godwin, sent part of a plank from the track to John Coles, an assistant lecturer in archaeology at Cambridge University, who had carried out some excavations on nearby trackways.[8] Coles' interest in the trackways led to the Somerset Levels Project, which ran from 1973 to 1989, funded by various donors including English Heritage. The project undertook a range of local archaeological activities, and established the economic and geographic significance of various trackways from the 3rd and 1st millennium BC.[9] The work of John Coles, Bryony Coles and the Somerset Levels Project was recognised in 1996 when they won the Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) Award for the best archaeological project offering a major contribution to knowledge,[10] and in 2006 with the European Archaeological Heritage Prize.[11]

No adverts: The track was discovered in 1970 during peat excavations, and is named after its finder, Ray Sweet,[7] whose employer sent part of a plank from the track to John Coles, an assistant lecturer in archaeology at Cambridge University, who had carried out some excavations on nearby trackways.[8] Coles' interest in the trackways led to the Somerset Levels Project, which ran from 1973 to 1989. The project undertook a range of local archaeological activities and established the economic and geographic significance of various trackways from the 3rd and 1st millennium BC.[9]

See what I mean?Keith-264 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No not really.... The company "E.J. Godwin" doesn't particularly get promoted, it just records the fact that it was them that sent the sample. If no organisations should be mentioned then Cambridge University should also be removed. Surely funding by English Heritage is significant - establishing that outside (national) organisations thought the work of enough importance to provide funding. The fact that they were awarded prizes (whether funded by a company or not) is worthy of mention. I don't see those as advertising - but would be interested in the thoughts of others.— Rod ^talk 16:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well if Keith-264 objects to company names, it aught to be:
• No Adverts: The track was discovered in 1970 during peat excavations, and is named after its finder, Ray Sweet, [7] whose employer sent part of a plank from the track to John Coles, an assistant lecturer in archaeology at Cambridge University, who had carried out some excavations on nearby trackways.[8] Coles' interest in the trackways led to the Somerset Levels Project, which ran from 1973 to 1989, funded by various donors including English Heritage. The project undertook a range of local archaeological activities, and established the economic and geographic significance of various trackways from the 3rd and 1st millennium BC.[9] The work of John Coles, Bryony Coles and the Somerset Levels Project was recognised in 1996 when they won a company-sponsored award for the best archaeological project offering a major contribution to knowledge,[10] and in 2006 with the European Archaeological Heritage Prize.[11],

Pyrotec (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like Pyrotec's version better as it recognises the stages in the process and the recognition the work received.— Rod ^talk 16:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like commercial ghouls poking their bugles into academic work and archaeological research, when they are using public money anyway. As for prizes, they're all right for manipulating children in infant schools but grown-ups ought to know better than to allow themselves to be appropriated by pseudo-paternalism. Not that I'm bitter....;o) The commercial stuff might make an interesting section on the expropriation of public goods by private interests but it rather jumped off the page at me - was it an article about trackways or patronage?Keith-264 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[..] until the 2009 discovery of a 6,000-year-old trackway in Plumstead, London. - No reference? Once found, this datum may be of benefit to readers of the Plumstead article. 92.29.18.107 (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section of a Wikipedia article should not normally be referenced as it is supposed to be just summary of the rest of the article. If you read the full article you will find that there is a reference for this information further down. Richerman (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was the length of the track? Nowhere is even an estimate given. Abductive (reasoning) 16:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:RichardAB added this link to a YouTube 3D film of the track to the lead of this article. I moved this to the external links section but they have reverted my edit. Do others think it should stay in the lead?— Rod ^talk 16:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be in the external links section. Is there sufficient source information for it to be described in the body as well? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sweet Track. 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/20120324051317/http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes/downloads/HES_150_Years_Chapter_11.pdf to http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes/downloads/HES_150_Years_Chapter_11.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) 13:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sweet Track. 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/20110409184902/http://www.ccanw.co.uk/assets/files/Wood_Wisdom_Panels.pdf to http://www.ccanw.co.uk/assets/files/Wood_Wisdom_Panels.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) 21:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the Post Track article should be merged with this one. Rwood128 (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you suggest the rationale for this? They are two separate structures, although they cover a similar path. This was not suggested during the articles FA candidate discussion.— Rod ^talk 17:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sweet track and the Post Track are two different ancient structures/sites. It does not make sense to group them together until more research takes place. It is thought that the Post track may have been the "scaffold" used to build the Sweet track - but it is 30 years older, a generation, so the theory that it may be the remains of a more ancient track is possible. I understand why merging would make sense, but perhaps not at this time. Netherzone (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I will remove the banners. Rwood128 (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]