Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Great Wilbraham (causewayed enclosure)/archive1

Great Wilbraham (causewayed enclosure)

Featured article candidates/Great Wilbraham (causewayed enclosure)/archive1

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a causewayed enclosure near Cambridge, in England. It was excavated briefly in 1975 and 1976, but the project was derailed by a tragedy: David Clarke, who was the director of the excavation, died suddenly in his 30s in the summer of 1976. The project archive lay untouched for three decades; in 2006 what could be found of it was written up, but no new excavation was undertaken -- by that time the location had become a scheduled monument.

The "Background" section, and a couple of sentences in the lead, are taken verbatim from other articles on causewayed enclosures, as the background information is identical for all of them. See Offham Hill or Barkhale Camp for examples. I don't think this should be an issue, but wanted to mention in it as an FYI. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 16:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I've done that for a diagram before, but I had a go at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

Unless I am missing something (I don't think I am, because I read it through twice to make sure) Clarke's death, mentioned in the lead, is not covered anywhere in the body...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Will give this a look -- very much up my street. A small drive-by for now: the article has WP:TIES to the UK, so BrE should be used (and so analysed, not analyzed), and the St in J. K. St Joseph isn't followed by a dot. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you're going to review it. I've fixed the full stop after "St". I think "analyzed" is allowed as Oxford spelling, though I have to confess I came to use that spelling sideways -- decades in the US have corrupted my native British English, and I probably switched from -ise endings without even realizing it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit to finding Oxford English bizarre -- it is a perfectly good variety of English, though I'd advise putting up tags to be clear that you're using it rather than "normal" BrE. However, as User:Tim riley explained it to me, OxE uses -ize when the etymology of the word is from a Greek '-izein suffix (so Hellenize); analysed is from analusis, so I don't think that would apply here anyway? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "analyse", and I added the relevant tag. I'd have no objections if you or anyone else changed it all to regular BrEng. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be a bit coy about dating the enclosure: we talk about the dates in which these enclosures were built, but don't at any point try to pin one on Great Wilbraham. Has anyone done so?
Not as far as I can tell. Gathering Time (GT) is the most recent coverage, and they conclude with "The enclosure remains undated. It was not possible to locate any further suitable samples." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same point on functions: we talk about what enclosures in general might have been used for, but don't say e.g. it may have been a settlement, meeting place, or ritual site.
I think you mean that it would seem natural to talk specifically about what Great Wilbraham might have been used for, rather than in general times about what causewayed enclosures might have been used for? This is the seventh of these that I've brought to FAC, and I think I've been writing them this way (both the lead and the background section) because I've been imagining them as a unified topic. If you were reading a book with chapters about each enclosure, you wouldn't expect a statement to be repeated in each chapter that this enclosure might have been a camp, or a ritual site, and so on -- there would be an introductory chapter giving that overview, since the statements would apply to more than just one enclosure. I think it makes sense to take the same approach here -- speak generally about the class of site, then specifically about this site when we're talking about the archaeological or antiquarian investigations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the situation is reversed when we've got an article about a specific enclosure -- there, I think we would normally be expected to keep the focus on the Great Wilbraham enclosure, and widen the picture only when necessary to add important context. However, this is a matter of taste -- your approach is entirely reasonable. I do think, as currently framed, we've introduced a strong element of doubt as to which, if any, of these functions could reasonably have been filled by Great Wilbraham, though I can also see why that would be intentional. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the dating issue: Historic England has They were constructed over a period of some 500 years during the middle part of the Neolithic period (c.3000-2400 BC). That's quite a way off what we've said -- I can't get to most of the sources, but are we sure that HE have simply made a mistake and there's no debate here?
I can send you any of the sources you're interested in, if you like -- particularly if this is an area of expertise for you I'd be very glad to have another pair of eyes on interpreting the material. I am really surprised by the dates given there. GT (p. 897) has "...probably began ... in the late 38th century cal BC ... The pace began to quicken in the second quarter of the 37th century cal BC ... construction of new enclosures in southern Britain was on the wane from the middle of the 36th century cal BC". GT is authoritative, but earlier sources give similar dates. For example, The Creation of Monuments (Oswald et al., 2001) has a chart showing 3800-3200 BC as the date range, with the core period being 3600-3300 BC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we've got good sources on our side, I'm happy to write off HE as an error, but just wanted to check. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
including Neolithic flint, and pottery from periods stretching from the Neolithic to the present day, and animal bone—mostly cattle, but with some sheep and pig: the first and here is a bit poetic/rhetorical, I think.
I think "poorly copyedited" would be more accurate! Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they would have provided multiple ways for attackers to pass through the ditches to the inside of the camp: if we just said that we don't know what these are, on what basis do we now call them "camps"? Suggest cutting this last bit.
They do get called that in the literature. It sounds like you have access to Evans (2006); you can see from that that Clarke's own notes describe it as a "causeway camp". A friend of mine who is a professor of archaeology, whom I contacted for help with interpreting some of Evans' wording (and who, it turns out, knew David Clarke and was at Cambridge when Clarke died) referred to them as camps in his emails to me (though he's not a specialist in that period). I just did a Google Scholar search and found a 2020 source using the term, though it does seem to be falling out of fashion. Both usages in the article currently are in hypotheticals where there are people in the enclosure, so I probably unconsciously put them in on the basis that these were camp-like situations. Having said all that, I can remove it if you think it's misleading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd suggest the reverse -- actually say, explicitly, early on that Clarke referred to [the interior of?] the structure as a "camp". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The construction of these enclosures took only a short time: can we put a vague number on that -- a few minutes?
The source says "Causewayed enclosures ... were very large and often highly visible sites. They were built in one operation, involving the investment of many days' work by a large number of people." I could make this "a short time (weeks or months, but not years)" if you agree that doesn't go too far past the specifics in the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has there not been any more specific energetics research done here? There's loads of it into Neolithic monuments, where people have attempted to quantify the amount of worker-days involved in constructing the things. "Many days" could be expressed as "in a matter of days", but I'm conscious that the source phrasing is emphasising the large amount of effort, whereas we've turned that around to assert that they were relatively easy to build. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason not to push the map up into the "Site" section? I found myself looking down at it as I followed the text description.
On my screen it would cause a sandwiching problem with the infobox, which is rather long. It would only overlap by a few lines, but I think any sort of sandwiching is frowned on. I agree it would be more useful a little higher. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On my screen, the diagram is gigantic -- more than half the horizontal width. Would shrinking it slightly solve that problem? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
included on a list of 16 possible causewayed enclosures: not a major problem, but we had Over seventy causewayed enclosures have been identified in the British Isles: why the figures now?
Fixed; just being inconsistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're inconsistent about whether to introduce new people: J. K. St Joseph gets no introduction, and while he needs none among British archaeologists, he probably does for the general public. On the other hand, Christopher Evans (worth a redlink?) gets the small and slightly ambiguous "Cambridge archaeologist".
Added an intro for St Joseph; he was a geologist and I gather never could be fairly described as primarily an archaeologist, so I went with the CUCAP credit for his description. I haven't found much in the way of independent sources for Evans so didn't redlink him but can if you think it's justified. Would just "archaeologist" be better for him? I included "Cambridge" as a nod towards the academic continuity -- I'm no expert on the history here, but I understand Evans has worked a lot with Ian Hodder, also at Cambridge, who was a pioneer in post-processual archaeology and so a sort of academic descendant of Clarke's. That in turn made me wonder if there is some academic controversy or debate hiding behind Evans' criticism of Clarke and his methods, and again made me want to draw the connection. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Evans, really, but a lot of his early work from the 1980s looks very post-processual, and as you say there are a few co-publications with Ian Hodder (who has been at Stanford since the nineties). I think that's a good reason to introduce him, but I might be clear that Cambridge means the university, not just the city (Evans has long had a foot in both camps). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The enclosures in southern Britain began to appear: more natural, I think, as the enclosures began to appear in southern Britain -- current phrasing sounds like they popped out of the ground.
Yes, fair. Done. I'll have to remember to make that change in the other articles that use this text. I see you've been replying above; I'm off for second breakfast now and will get back to this later today. Thanks for the detailed comments; by the way. I've pushed back on several above but I don't want to give the impression that I'm resistant to your input -- just trying to communicate the details so we can agree on what's needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would generally convert between metric and imperial units -- did Clarke use metric?
He did. I've added conversions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New Archaeology, a movement to revise and expand the foundations of the discipline: I think it's worth setting out briefly how New/processual archaeology hoped to change things -- in particular, that New Archaeologists wanted excavations to be run like scientific experiments, explicitly theoretical in their conception, carried out to test hypotheses and with the collaboration of lots of scientific specialists. I think it would be worth name-checking his 1973 "Loss of innocence" paper as well -- he talked a lot there about why a New Archaeology was needed and how "traditional" excavators would push back against it. In a sense, was this excavation a bit like the University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition or, for a later movement, Hodder's work at Çatalhöyük, in that it served as a way of taking abstract ideas that had been discussed in theory and proving that they could make a difference in the field?
I looked into this a little while working on the article, but gave up on this for lack of sources. If I find something on New Archaeology, I'm concerned it would be SYNTH to apply the language in whatever I find to Clarke's work here. I think I would need someone talking about Great Wilbraham specifically, so I've made do with Evans' comments. For your second point, yes, I think in Clarke's mind it was exactly that. Evans says "Great Wilbraham also offered the potential to put specific ideas into practice; the chance of taking a systematic approach to data retrieval, analysis, and modelling at site, landscape, and broader scales." I turned that into "it was planned as a way to put into practice some of the theoretical ideas he had propounded over the previous decade". Are you suggesting I should name those ideas in that sentence, for example? I didn't because Evans doesn't and for these abstract discipline theories I am very hesitant to write something that might put words into the source's mouth. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything in the grant proposal that would be relevant here -- "the value of this excavation is that it will allow us to field-test the methodology of using X, Y and Z" or similar? I do think it's useful to define what New Archaeology was, beyond that it was, well, new, but agreed that it's dangerous to say exactly which aspects of it C. hoped to implement here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(See big comment below on this and related points) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

because the plan included using it as a training ground for students: this is pretty universal for digs led by university academics, particularly in Cambridge, but I'm not sure we can do much with that fact. Was Alexander not also brought along because, well, he would know which end of the shovel was which? Evans et al refer us to Hammond's biographical sketch for Clarke's fieldwork experience, which I can't immediately get hold of, but as I know it he was certainly more of a thinker and a writer than a digger. More pedantically, Evans et al say that Alexander got involved after the project became a training dig, not strictly because it did.
Yes, Evans says "after", but surely that's just a colloquial way of saying "because"? Why mention it otherwise? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My read of that was that the operation was getting bigger, and so would need two people, rather than Alexander being specifically brought on because of his expertise with training archaeologists, as our framing implies. Alternatively, since the general point was that Clarke was the driving force behind the operation, the decision to become a training dig might have been intended mostly as a chronological marker, to be clear that Alexander joined at a relatively late stage of the planning process. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it was planned as a way to put into practice some of the theoretical ideas he had propounded over the previous decade: as above, I think it would be helpful to set out what some of those were.
See comment above -- I'd like to be able to do this but would probably need help from you to word this correctly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great Wilbraham was the only known causewayed enclosure to include peat deposits: this presumably implies that someone had been and surveyed it before this point?
Yes, but as far as I can see Evans doesn't mention it. My own guess would be that it was so close to Cambridge that Clarke probably went there several terms while working up the original grant proposal to the BM, and would have noticed the peat (and probably spotted some of the worked flints). That's just a guess though; I don't have anything I can source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarke planned to include interdisciplinary analyses and an evaluation of the surrounding landscape and environment in the project: I would be explicit that this is a definition of "total archaeology".
Sorry if I'm being too timid about this sort of wording, but Evans doesn't say that so as above I'm uncomfortable using a term he doesn't. Again, can you point me at a source that would let me say something like this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a funny phrase -- lots of people use it, usually to bash it as ill-defined or impossible, but few people actually go out and say what it means! See Godja here, p. 216: "total archaeology (an approach to understanding in which all of the disciplines capable of bringing understanding relevant to settlement history are applied)". Alternatively and more critically, here p. 68: "the ... integration of diverse perspectives ... [and] disparate data generated by an interdisciplinary team of specialists".

Applying this to Great Wilbraham, Evans et al, cited, p. 118: This was intended to be an experiment in what Clarke called total archaeology. Predicated on the excavation of the entire enclosure, it was to involve a full array of interdisciplinary scientific/environmental analyses and intensive sample recovery. The site's proximity to Cambridge and its laboratories is also stressed as a major advantage for rapid response and systematic information retrieval - feedback, of course, being a major tenet of 'new' procedures. Based essentially on the quantity of its finds, Clarke is unambiguous in his assignation of the enclosure as a settlement given its 'heavy domestic occupation', and there is no mention of 'ritual' whatsoever. He is no less clear that one of the keys to understanding the site would come from exploring its situation at the interface of chalk and fen.

The three bolded bits are all key "New Archaeology" tenets (lots of STEM-y specialists, a feedback loop between hypothesis, method and results, and a strongly landscape-based approach to the study of a site). I think it's also important here that Clarke said that the site was definitely a settlement -- we might not want to throw all of our weight behind that in Wikivoice, but we should at least talk about it when we talk about the site's functions. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link British Museum?
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
allocated for purchasing collections: purchasing artefacts for its collections, surely -- unless it specifically had this money put aside for buying some aristocrat's entire hoard?
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarke and Alexander never published their work: this might be a little uncharitable -- we haven't yet, in the body at least, given Clarke's rather good excuse.
Yes, good point. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but the grant proposal for the following year records some of the details of the two weeks: can we put a date on it?
Unfortunately not -- frustatingly Evans gives no dates at all except to say "three weeks in the summer" for both years. I think Hammond mentions the dig in The Times and I could get a terminus ante quem, so to speak, from that, but it didn't seem worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant for when the grant proposal was written/submitted?

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finds included animal bone including cattle, sheep, pig, deer and wolf: neater as bones of cattle... to avoid included ... including? OK, presumably there were at least some unidentified bone fragments as well, but I'm not sure they're going to be particularly important.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A pollen column was taken, which covered 5000 years of the peat: I can visualise this, but I need a lot of "help" from having seen something similar done -- most readers will, I think, need a bit more explanation of what's actually going on here.
Had a go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
demonstrated changes in the environment over the life of the site, such as the clearance of the site in Neolithic times and later pasture development: might do a footnote to explain how this works -- presumably, they noted a sharp drop in the proportion of tree pollen in the Neolithic, then certain other changes characteristic of grazing?
I imagine so, but unfortunately this is from Clarke's notes, reproduced by Evans: "Dr. Birks (Dept Botany Cambridge) took a complete pollen column which showed that the peat ran from c. 5000-0 BC recording the neolithic clearance of the site, pasture development and many other interesting features contemporary with, as well as earlier and later than the neolithic occupation." The cite I just added is from a general archaeology reference which goes into a bit more detail about pollen analysis, so I could add a footnote explaining how this works in general. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Up to you; without specifics, it would have less (but not zero) value. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two more trenches were dug the following year, directed by Alexander and Ian Kinnes: Was Clarke hospitalised or dead at this point? I think it would almost be worth bringing Clarke's death to the front of this whole discussion, as a kind of apology and explanation for why we're reconstructing everything out of scraps and plans.
I've moved mention of his death up in response to another of your comments so perhaps this is now addressed? Clarke died at the end of June, but since Evans doesn't give the dig dates for 1976 I can't see if Kinnes was added while Clarke was ill or after he died. Clarke died at the end of the Tripos and the dig was probably in the summer holiday so I would guess everything was planned and ready to go when he died, and Kinnes stepped in. No source for that though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's almost certain that the dig would have been between July and September, but agreed that there's not much we can do without a source. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two more trenches were dug the following year, directed by Alexander and Ian Kinnes: I would explain what a spit is in archaeology.
I'll come back to this -- I have some general references that talk about digging but haven't yet found a good explanation that I can cite. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
rather than the more modern method of stratigraphic excavation (removing the material in each identifiable layer of soil as a unit).: I am surprised by this -- doing stratigraphy "properly" was a big deal for would-be "scientific" excavators. You might also be being slightly too kind in saying "more modern", implying that it was cutting-edge in the seventies -- back in the twenties, John Pendlebury is on record as moaning that his director wasn't paying enough attention to the stratigraphy. In the UK, good stratigraphic methods had been standard for most of Clarke's life, since at least the 50s, and since the 30s to those who were paying attention.
I completely agree that it's surprising; there are a couple of paragraphs in Evans that can be translated as "Clarke's fieldwork was very poor", though he's polite about it. I've written a couple of articles about pre-war excavations and the question of stratigraphy vs. spits was clearly coming down on the side of the former back then, so to my lay eyes it's astonishing that Great Wilbraham was excavated like this. Particularly since I gather Alexander was very experienced indeed; that has to imply Clarke designed the methodology. But do you think a change in the text was warranted? The only judgemental (as opposed to specific) comment that Evans makes is "Though not wishing to dwell on matters of hindsight, Clarke's approach to the monument, while undoubtedly pioneering, was also (at least in part) inappropriate."
Especially given Evans' comment there (bearing in mind nil nisi bonum), I think we've been too kind. I think Evans elsewhere is explicit that the conception and command of the excavation were very much Clarke's? I would certainly reword "more modern" to something stronger like "generally accepted", "the standard method of stratigraphic excavation" or similar -- we make it sound like there was a genuine choice between a new-fangled approach and a traditional one, when in fact very few archaeologists of the time would have defended Clarke's methods. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
two 45 m long arms: hyphenate, as adjectival.
Done, with a conversion added, which makes it look a bit awkward. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recording of finds below this level was inconsistent between the trenches: can we explain exactly what this meant? Was one trench simply not very good at it, or did different trench supervisors adopt different recording strategies?
The full answer to this is presumably lost in the missing part of the archive. Evans says "Unfortunately, descriptions for all three trenches are inconsistent and frequently ambiguous. However, cross-referencing the record sheets with surviving sections and artefact densities suggests that any material given a layer number of five or greater is probably derived from features cut into the chalk marl substrate." Evans says at one point that "Having removed the topsoil, the trenches were essentially spit-dug by 'layers' in metre squares", and there's a photo to support this, but later "These individual squares were then hand-dug in 10 cm spits, with layer numbers given to different soils and feature fills as they were encountered", implying that the layer numbers were stratigraphic. And "buried soils were identified (usually as Layer 3) in several trenches". So it seems to be spit-digging, for spatial control, but stratigraphic layer numbering, without a clear way of connecting the notation from one trench to the others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I read descriptions for all three trenches are inconsistent and frequently ambiguous, it's more than "different trenches did it differently", as we imply, it's that no trench seems to have done a usable job. I take Evans as saying that no trench recorded finds consistently (with itself) or clearly. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a sample of the peat itself to 7000 BC: no error bars on that?
No -- Evans couldn't find the 1970s lab information for that sample so all he had was "7000 BC". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest estimated date was for a retouched blade which may have been from the Upper Palaeolithic.: I'd put a BC/BP date down here so that readers don't have to click away to the Upper Paleolithic page.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the nearby river gravel terrace: hyphen needed in river-gravel.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few artefacts not made from local stone were identified: suggest made from non-local stone; we currently imply that not many artefacts were made of e.g. bone or pottery.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fragments of stone axes from from Cornwall and Cumberland: not Pike of Stickle, by any chance? Has anyone commented on what they were doing there? Lots has been written about Cumbrian axes, in particular, as having some kind of special status.
All we have is "In addtion to flint, work in 1975 resulted in the recovery of a small number of artefacts made on non-local stone. These have now been lost, but were identified at the time by Professor Forbes of the Department of Geology and included fragments of Group I (Cornish) and Group VI (Cumbrian) stone axes." That's from Evans p. 131. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha: Group VI axes are from the Langdales, and are indeed a bit of a Thing. I'd suggest naming them and giving some context here. There's a bit that can be said about Group I axes as well: the linked page isn't the greatest source, but gives an overview, and I'm sure from there you or I can follow it up in more authoritative works. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mildenhall ware, a form of Neolithic pottery found in southern England: as ever -- can we put a date on when it was made, other than "Neolithic"? "Made in southern England between 3700 and 3400 BC"?
The names and classification of Neolithic pottery are nightmarish for a layperson like me. I have two references I use for them: Gibson & Woods, cited in the article, which is from 1990, and a 2002 book by Gibson, Prehistoric Pottery in Britain and Ireland. The former is structured as a dictionary; the Mildenhall entry gives no dates but refers to another entry that calls it middle Neolithic. The 2002 book mentions Mildenhall as the eastern version of a set of Neolithic forms that began to appear around 3600 BC. I think I could reasonably combine these to say "mid-fourth-millennium BC", if you think that's worth doing? I emailed Gibson a couple of years ago asking if there were more recent references, and he said no, and proceeded to give me a very helpful explanation of why the evolution of the terminology for Neolithic pottery is so complicated. It stems partly from changes in the understanding of the chronology, and partly from incorporating what were once regional style names into an overall chronological picture. I can't really cite his email though! He had not at that time interested the publisher in an updated version of his book. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not the greatest source, but it does have bibliography -- I got those Mildenhall ware dates from this guide: Percival is a professional archaeological pottery analyst. Mid M4th works for me. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
since the excavation was by spits: you might be able to solve this with a better explanation further up, but at the moment it's not obvious why this would ruin the stratigraphy. Technically speaking, this wouldn't be a crisis if Clarke and Alexander had also recorded the stratigraphic context in which it was found (you can, after all, have more than one in a trench without a real problem), but it sounds like they didn't do that or, indeed, establish a system of context recording at all.
See my comments above about this and the quotes from Evans. I will see if I can address this when I find something I can use to define spits -- it does seem as if there was some attempt at stratigraphic labelling. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The upper four layers included some Mildenhall material, but also pottery from the Late Bronze Age through to the present-day. All layers below this, which were all probably from within the various prehistoric ditches, contained Neolithic pieces, with a few Iron Age and Roman fragments. The outermost ditch found in trench GW II contained Roman material in all layers, indicating that this ditch dated from the Romano-British era: lots of dates would help here. Most people know the Romans were about 2000 years ago, but a bit of precision would be better.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A dog was apparently present at the camp : again, we've called it a "camp", but I don't see in the article where we've got that from.
Cepea nemoralis: scientific names are italicised. Our page on those snails says that they live in woodland and prefer broad-leaved plants to grasses?
See next reply. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
though there was some inconsistency between the data from Great Wilbraham and a trend from the Neolithic to the Iron Age at other sites of the woodland form predominating in earlier sites.: I think this could do with a bit more explanation as to what it means and why it's important.
I've had a go at this. Strictly speaking John Evans doesn't support the "implying ..." part of what I've added, but I think it's a logically obvious statement to make given what he does say about grassland and woodland forms. I think what I've added also addresses your comment above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lowest sample: I think we need to be explicit about what lower and upper mean in chronological terms.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These pollen spectra from these samples was in agreement with: ce: The pollen spectra from these samples were in agreement with...
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link Norman Hammond, Catherine Frieman in the biblio?
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would give the Antiquity date (for Wilson's article) simply as "1975", as it's an annual publication.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do some people get their names spelt out in the bibliography and others, like Maud Cunningham, just get initials?
This reflects how they are listed in the journals -- Cunnington was actually listed as "Mrs. M. E. Cunnington", but I wasn't going to go there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to spell out where I can, in the same sort of vein as MOS:CONFORM, but that works too. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly enjoyed that one -- kudos as well for providing an excellent diagram. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. Finished a pass through; will go back through and start on your replies, probably in a little while. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long review, but hopefully at least some of it is useful, and maybe some of that even passes for interesting. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

I'll have a look at this too. If you would like to do a review, I've also got an article at FAC that needs reviews. Steelkamp (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The site was rich in finds, including Neolithic flint, and pottery from periods stretching from the Neolithic to the present day, and animal bone..." Two ands in a row?

Background

Could you add a non-breaking space before each BC for the dates? MOS:ERA says it is "advisable to use a non-breaking space".

Site

I would link Cambridgeshire in the body as its only linked in the infobox. Also, just to clarify, are you not linking terms already linked in the lead? I believe that is fine, although I would typically link those terms in the body as well.
No conversions to imperial units? Either way, the unabbreviated measurement should be given first. "20 m" should be changed to "20 metres" and "2 ha" should be changed to "2 hectares".A non-breaking space should be put between each figure and its units as well.

Archaeological investigations

Comments by Femke

Lovely article, thanks for working on it.

It may be nice to have a feeling of the size of the enclosure in the lead.
I would split the first para of the background section in two, it's quite long.
The section relies quite heavily on older sources. For most of the material, that's no problem, but for two instances, I wonder if newer sourcing exist:
- The debate on the purpose of the enclosures. Has there been any development in that debate since 2011? Or in terms of military analysis, since 1930.
- Over seventy causewayed enclosures have been identified in the British Isles --> Is this number still roughly the same since 2011? I can imagine that satellite techniques may be increased this number.
I don't quite understand the sentence " The construction of these enclosures took only a short time, which implies significant organization since substantial labour would have been required for clearing the land, preparing trees for use as posts or palisades, and digging the ditches". The first couple of times I read this sentence, it seemed contradictory (I read the first bit as implying it was easy to make, the second bit as difficult). Can you reorganise / split the sentence so that this becomes clearer? For instance, by first talking about how much and what work is needed, and then a second sentence about the findings of low constructions times / organisation.
Similarly, consider breaking the first paragraph of the Archaeological investigations in two, it's quite long.
Consider explaining cropmarks the first time it's mentioned. (I assume you've looked into adding an image of the cropmarks of the find, and there weren't any suitably licensed ones available. Would be cool if we could have one).
Should ploughsoil be (red)linked? Seems notable, and it's jargon
Link fieldwalking
Maybe link sherd
These pollen spectra from these samples --> Only use these once (the pollen spectra from these samples).

That was all from me! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]