Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great Wilbraham (causewayed enclosure)

[edit]

Great Wilbraham (causewayed enclosure) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 10 August 2024, 20:53 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
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]

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

I don't have a whole lot of comments here - I read some archaeological literature for fun but wouldn't consider myself to have a whole lot of knowledge in this subject base; I wouldn't say my poking around in old farm fields with a metal detector has enhanced my knowledge of archaelogy much either.

  • "and a single bone each from red deer, dog and horse" - is this the dog remains here the same as the wolf remains noted to have been found in the site?
    Hadn't noticed that; good catch. The later review doesn't say so explicitly, but it's clear the case. I've worded it carefully to avoid saying that the review found this to be an error, but I think it'll be clear to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that the dig had not found evidence of a bank associated with the ditch[60]" - misssing a period after this sentence
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Overall the site was found to be "spectacularly" rich in finds, " - as this is a direct quote it should probably have inline attribution to the author who is being quoted
    There are multiple authors for that chapter, so to avoid the issue I changed it to "remarkably". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The site was listed as a scheduled monument in 1976." - is it known if this is due to St Joseph's aerial work, or Clarke's field excavations?
    I haven't found anything about it and I don't see anything on the HE website giving the background. I suspect that once the 1975 excavation proved it was a causewayed enclosure the wheels were set in motion, but I don't have anything I can cite. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very interesting read; I wish I were able to provide a more in-depth review. Hog Farm Talk 02:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; all replied to. As you can see below I am benefiting from an in-depth review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Drive-by comment

[edit]

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

[edit]

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 th at 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]
    One of the reasons I'd like to keep it as is is that I don't believe there's any consensus on what these enclosures were used for -- it's not as if the function of some has been determined, but not of others. Nobody knows what any of them were used for, so there's nothing that's specific to an individual enclosure that can be said. I have seen a couple of references while looking at Freston causewayed enclosure, which I may tackle next, that imply there are some recent theories, and I'll follow those up in case there's something to be added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have Clarke (via Evans et al, too) going out and saying that the site was a settlement, or at least a camp, but as far as I can tell largely doing so by assertion rather than argument. How about something like "the site's excavator, David Clarke, considered that it was probably a settlement. The function of causewayed enclosures in general is debated..." and then go into the discussion we already have about military vs civilian, domestic vs ritual (and, if I may, allow for those functions to overlap?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done; I joined it with a "but" as I think (and Evans doesn't quite say) that Clarke was being much too confident in his assertion, and I want the reader to be aware that the excavator's opinion is not definitive here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 29 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]
    I've emailed HE with a correction request. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 29 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]
    After thinking about it some more I've changed the two instances of "camp" to "enclosure". The article now mentions Clarke's assertion that the site was a settlement, as you suggest, but I don't think that interpretation should be accidentally reinforced by the language (which was your original point). The "causeway camp" usage does seem to be dying out, and Evans, for example, never uses the word camp except when quoting others, so I think the article should follow suit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent solution to both problems. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:26, 29 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]
    I haven't seen anything on the energetics but agree that would be worth adding if it exists. (I should probably have a go at the causewayed enclosure article itself, where that would most naturally belong.) I take your point that Andersn stresses the labour, but the article does currently say "since substantial labour would have been required for ..." -- is more needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think, as Femke says below, we're currently blowing hot and cold -- simultaneously arguing that it was a quick job, and a very big one. Perhaps the missing link is that it was a lot of work, but also that it was done very quickly and efficiently? Maybe spelling that out would be helpful UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Had another go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. We might quibble "must have been planned in advance" (emphasis mine) -- people could otherwise have been very efficient because they did it a lot, were very well-organised, or simply had a huge amount of labour power. Perhaps something a little softer like "was probably/almost certainly planned well in advance"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm OK with weakening it if you want to, but "must" is in the source -- "Before their construction the work must have been planned for some years, the area being cleared of vegetation and big stones, with trees for the posts and palisades selected, prepared and transported". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds a bit woolly to me (they really think it takes years to shift the rocks and choose some good trees?), but if it’s in a good source, that’s all the justification you need. One could make an unkind comment about academics and their sense of a reasonable speed at which to work… UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On reflection I agree with you. I changed it to "would probably". Incidentally, on one of your other points, I found a mention of causewayed enclosures in the British Handbook of Archaeology as "mid-third millennium BC", which is the same mistake that HE made. The author is John Pouncett, who is a Neolithic specialist as far as I can tell, so it's just odd. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be as simple as someone mistaking "halfway through the 3000s" as "halfway through the 3rd millennium". UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 30 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]
    I made the map 20% smaller -- how does that look? Unfortunately that's not going to help the sandwiching since it's the top of the image that will sandwich with the infobox. I moved it up anyway; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Size is good, but I would definitely align it right to keep a consistent left margin (MOS:ACCESSIBILITY). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to the right. It bumps up against the infobox on my screen in that position, which is why I put it on the left, but it's not too bad. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 29 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]
    I made it "Christopher Evans, a Cambridge University archaeologist, ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:23, 29 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]
    Responded there; perhaps that takes care of this point too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it does: I still think our definition of New Archaeology is too vague, and putting all the concrete detail into Clarke's proposal makes it sound almost as if he came up with the idea of treating archaeology as a physical science, when in fact most of the theoretical groundwork had been done in the United States by people like Lewis Binford and Kent Flannery a decade or so earlier. Clarke was important as an evangelist for the movement, but I'm not sure he did as much to invent it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Clarke has a contemporary status as a disciplinary 'ancestor', cited in claims of intellectual descent and in accounts that sometimes border on hagiography", according to Evans; combining that with this obituary in Nature, which explicitly denies that his work is "in the manner of the American New Archaeology", I think you're right. I'm afraid I'm not clear how you think I should fix this. I had left the references to New Archaeology linked and unexplained in the version I brought to FAC because I didn't see clear statements in the sources I had. I can see why you suggested adding more about New Archaeology, but I don't see where to get it from -- particuarly if Sherratt's obituary is right and Clarke shouldn't be seen as only or strictly in that mould. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can keep it loose -- try Johnson's Archaeological Theory here (frustratingly, no page numbers in Google Books, but search "New Archaeology"), which does so and explicitly uses Clarke. I would cite it to amend something like David Clarke was one of the leading figures in New Archaeology, a hetreogenous movement to revise and expand the foundations of the discipline bring archaeology closer to the natural sciences, and conduct archaeological excavations in a scientific manner. We don't need to get into the weeds of exactly what that meant in practice to each individual archaeologist, but Johnson is clear that everyone in NA agreed on that much. 06:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
    Done; I cited it to chapter 3 in the absence of page numbers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 31 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]
    Fair enough -- that's a plausible reading, so I've changed it to "after". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 29 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 times 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]
    I used Gojda's definition to follow Evans' mention of "total archaeology" and to introduce Clarke's approach; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good, but I realised I missed the obvious earlier on -- the more current term is "landscape archaeology", and while that isn't quite the same thing (part of the reason for changing the terminology is to be a little more specific and concrete), a link or nod might be helpful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see an obvious place to mention it in the article so I created a "See also" section and added it there. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would do "total archaeology, a precursor to landscape archaeology", or even just link "total archaeology" to landscape archaeology (come to think of it, I might create a redirect and put a little explanation in the landscape archaeology article). UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you've done this, so I've removed the "See also". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:50, 29 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]
    Clarke mentions the September 1975 excavation as in the past in the proposal. The only other date Evans mentions is that the Fortran contour 3D plot is dated January 1976, but I don't think we can assume that was before the grant proposal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:23, 29 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]
    Added a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 29 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]
    Have you got Renfrew and Bahn? Would have thought that any introductory textbook/glossary would do the trick. I can probably dig it out (stratigraphically) if you don't. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do, but I discovered in trying to find a definition that modern books don't even use the term any more, so I couldn't use that for the definition. I found a condemnation of spit-digging in Drewett's Field Archaeology and cited that, but had to use the online Oxford Reference for the plain definition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 29 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]
    I used Drewett to say "unsound" (his word); is that strong enough? I'd like to be able to say "considered unsound even at the time", but I'd need an old source for that. I tried Crawford's Archaeology in the Field (I have the 1960 printing) but he doesn't get that specific about excavation technique. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe something like Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought, or again Renfrew and Bahn on the history of archaeological methods? We don't necessarily need a source from the time, only one that looks back on when stratigraphic excavation became the norm. Something reflecting on Wheeler and his legacy might also do the trick. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a bit in here (1989), chapters 2 and 3, that makes clear that stratigraphic excavation was a Thing from the 20s and 30s, and that non-stratigraphic excavation was a definite oddity after the 50s at least, but I'm struggling to find a slam-dunk one-liner that can pin it to a single page. Personally, I think there's enough there to cite "the then-preferred method" and reference "for the growing acceptance of the stratigraphic method over the first half of the twentieth century, see Harris 2014, ch. 2 and 3", but that might be a bit loose for some people's tastes. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read those two chapters, and at the moment I'd rather not add anything more -- as you say there's no slam-dunk statement that in 1975 it would have been considered poor technique. Also it seems that there was a phase in which digs were conducted by spit but recorded by spit and stratigraphic layer, and Evans seems to say that that's what Clarke intended -- if I'm reading that correctly it's the execution that is bad, as the layer numbers are not clearly identified or correlated across trenches. If so, spit-digging is not the only or even the main criticism. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What we've got works nicely, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:53, 29 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]
    I would agree with that. Changed to "Recording of finds below this level was poor within the trenches and inconsistent between them, so it was not always possible for the later analysis to be sure of the original stratigraphic position of the finds." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 29 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]
    Done, using another source to cite "greenstone" for the Cornish axes. That source (Schauer) refers to Group VI axes from the Langdale source as if there were other possible sources for Group VI. Taylor (the source you linked) seems unambiguous that they're Langdale axes though, so I've worded it that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Funnily enough: I was in a museum this morning and found a rather nice map of the different "groups" and their origin points - it was cited to this edited volume from 1979, and put a nice big dot over the central Lakes for Group VI. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:12, 31 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]
    Done; I think Gibson is enough here so I used that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 29 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]
    Do you think this is still an issue, given the changes so far and the conversations above about this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a problem, but I might add, "with no record of stratigraphic divisions" just to be extra-clear. It's possible to dig spits and still record stratigraphy properly, if you have the right systems in place. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this covered by "Recording of finds below this level was poor within the trenches and inconsistent between them, so it was not always possible for the later analysis to be sure of the original stratigraphic position of the finds"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly, yes, but that's in a previous section. Also, again strictly speaking, our sentence is still a slight non sequitur: it does not follow that each envelope could contain material from more than one stratigraphic layer from the excavation was by spits. In fact, as we've said The sherds were stored in the 1970s in labeled envelopes, identified by layer, trench, and grid square, I think something may be awry: either layer doesn't mean "stratigraphic context" or there's another piece to this puzzle. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replied in a new subsection below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 30 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.
    Addressed per the comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
    Cepea nemoralis shells, most of which had visible bands. This form: The banded form of this species? Just want to be clear that "this form" doesn't mean Cepea nemoralis (incidentally, nemoralis means who lives in woodland groves). UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:45, 29 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]
Don't apologize -- there's not much on Wikipedia that's more rewarding than having someone who knows what they're talking about engage with one's work. I really appreciate the detailed review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am now caught up on all your comments. Will go and recaffeinate and take a look at the comments from others below. ~~`~~
  • And another one -- I don't think we actually say in the body that it's near the village of Great Wilbraham.
    Fixed. I saw your other points but have to pause till this evening as I'm off to work shortly, but I'll just say I suspect "layer" of being used for both stratigraphy and spit level, either in Evans' description or Clarke's or both. I'll see if I can sort that out this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Layers
[edit]

Starting a new section for the layers discussion since I want to quote a couple of things from Evans, which would make a mess of the bullet list above. From Evans:

  • "Having removed the topsoil, the trenches were essentially spit-dug by 'layers' in metre squares (Fig. 7). Whilst potentially maximising the spatial control of finds, discrete fills were not distinguished, nor - breaking with convention - was any kind of feature numbering system systematically applied." (p. 122)
  • "Recording was undertaken by dividing each trench into 1 m2 units, each given a unique letter and number. 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. In several trenches, alternate squares were dug as a first priority to establish the nature of deposits, quantify artefact densities, and 'record stratigraphy'". A photo of a context sheet from the dig is included. (p. 124)
  • "... buried soils were identified (usually as Layer 3) in several trenches, and provided the first horizon at which artefacts were collected and recorded systematically. So far as can be established, no cut features were identified above the chalk marl. 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". (p. 125)
  • A grid diagram is captioned "Trench artefact densities shown by spit/layer depth and metre square". (p. 128) It seems spit/layer only makes sense if they are different indications of depth, so this use of "layer" seems to refer to stratigraphic layer, but there's only one depth dimension given. That dimension is labelled "layer" not "spit", so this seems to be a stratigraphy diagram.
  • "The material was contained in 499 individual envelopes separated by trench, grid square, and layer. The majority of the envelopes held mixed assemblages reflecting the spit method of excavation." Surely "layer" here refers to spit depth? Otherwise the second sentence makes no sense.

Given the above I think the sentence at the end of the "Reanalysis" section is OK -- it doesn't make any direct assertion about the stratigraphy and just reports Evans' criticism of the recording. You comment above that "it does not follow that each envelope could contain material from more than one stratigraphic layer from the excavation was by spits", but I think the last quote from Evans above says that it was the case. My interpretation would be that the envelopes were separated by trench, grid square, and spit depth, and that layer does not mean stratigraphic layer in that sentence of Evans'. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- they've clearly done the vertical divisions arbitrarily (at 10cm increments) rather than stratigraphically. How about in labeled envelopes, identified by layer spit depth, trench, and grid square? I do think, at the moment, the word layer is going to cause confusion with the upcoming since the excavation was by spits this meant that each envelope could contain material from more than one stratigraphic layer, since we need the reader to understand that what we're calling layer and stratigraphic layer are completely different things. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, done. Not sure why I couldn't see that that was a simple solution to the confusion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: that's my last quibble sorted, and on re-read I have nothing but praise for the article. I've certainly prodded and poked it over the course of this review, but I hope it's been beneficial: at least from my perspective, I think we've beaten out some really tricky issues and made it even closer to watertight. Very impressive work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, both for the support and for the detailed and very helpful review. The article is much improved because of it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

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?
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph is really short, which makes the lead unbalanced. Perhaps that sentence could be tacked onto the end of the first paragraph, behind "The Great Wilbraham enclosure was first identified from aerial photographs in 1972."
    Per Iazyges comment in the review below I've made a different change at that part of the lead, so I added it to the end of the second paragraph instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

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.
    Done. My intention is to link again in the body, as you say; did I miss others? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is Cambridge. There is also David L. Clarke, who is linked upon his second mention in the body but not first. Its also inconsistent as to whether he is mentioned with his middle initial or not.
    All addressed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most causewayed enclosures are oval..." Suggest changing to "Most causewayed enclosures are oval-shaped..."
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The site is slightly tilted towards the old river course, with the upper edge of the site at the edge of the higher ground." This is unclear to me. What is the higher ground referring to? In what way is the site tilted? Is that just a way of saying the site is sloped? If so, saying the site is sloped towards the old river course is a clearer way of putting it.
    Done. "Tilted" seems to be the preferred way to describe this sort of thing in sources about causewayed enclosures, but you're right that "sloped" is perfectly clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological investigations

All responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Here's my support Steelkamp (talk)

Comments by Femke

[edit]

Lovely article, thanks for working on it.

  • It may be nice to have a feeling of the size of the enclosure in the lead.
    Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would split the first para of the background section in two, it's quite long.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
      I'm not aware of anything more recent, though I have a couple of papers to read that may have more ideas. I think "military analysis" is probably too dignified a term for some pre-war archaeologists guessing at the defensibility of the site! But I think the military possibility has to be mentioned because of the evidence that at least a couple of these sites were attacked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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.
      It does seem plausible but I only know of one site identified since 2001, though there may be others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    This has been reworked as a result of other comments -- how does it look now? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, consider breaking the first paragraph of the Archaeological investigations in two, it's quite long.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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).
    I added a note; does that do it? And yes, sadly there's nothing freely available, and I don't think fair use could be justified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should ploughsoil be (red)linked? Seems notable, and it's jargon
    I added a link to glossary of archaeology; I'm not sure it could be an article, but I agree it's jargon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link fieldwalking
    It's linked -- maybe I added the link after you read the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe link sherd
    Same here -- this is linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These pollen spectra from these samples --> Only use these once (the pollen spectra from these samples).
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

All addressed, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Femke, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very happy with the article now, support :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges

[edit]
  • The Great Wilbraham enclosure was first identified from aerial photographs in 1972. keeping this in the first paragraph of the lede seems somewhat awkward, suggest making it the first sentence of the second paragraph.
  • Excavation by spits is considered an unsound approach, but in other ways the work was advanced for its time: for example, a computer program was written to render the contour topography of the site in 3D perspective. the phrasing seems a bit odd to me, perhaps While excavation by spits is considered an unsound approach, the work was in other ways advanced for its time: for example, a computer program was written to render the contour topography of the site in 3D perspective.
  • That's all from me. A fascinating article! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I see that some issues have been noted above. I kinda wonder why "Hammond, Norman (30 December 1975). "Archaeology report: Cambridge: Neolithic 'causewayed camp'". The Times. London. p. 10. " is written by an expert on archaeology on another continent. ""'Causewayed camps' and 'interrupted ditch systems'"." lacks a DOI. Otherwise, it seems like we are dealing with well-cited publications from reputable publishers, keeping in mind that this isn't an area where I am an expert in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added the DOI for Wilson. I think Hammond was the archaeology correspondent for The Times at that time, so he covered everything in the field for them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Great_Wilbraham_(causewayed_enclosure)/archive1&oldid=1239335032"