This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
Not sure I have much real expertise to add here, but I think I've been able to pick up a few errors and raise a few (hopefully) productive questions. As with Great Wilbraham, a well-written little article, and including the images is both helpful and creditworthy in the utmost. UndercoverClassicistT·C19:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead may be a little short as a summary of the whole article, particularly concerning the more recent excavations.
The listed coordinates seem to be wrong -- they don't show on the map of Suffolk, and appear to be somewhere in the North Sea.
Advise the use of British English (so "characterised") per WP:TIES.
Done, but I've been in the US long enough for my BrEng to be polluted, so please do let me know about any others you see (or just fix them if you prefer).
Our article puts a space in "Neolithic long house" -- should we do so here?
Some long sentences in the Background section -- would suggest trying to cut them up for clarity. See especially the second and fourth. Does this section now chime with what we ended up with at Great Wilbraham?
This is essentially identical to the Great Wilbraham section, except for some very minor formatting and the sentence about the excavator's opinion in Great Wilbraham. Causewayed enclosures are unfamiliar enough to lay readers that I feel some boilerplate introductory material is necessary for each of these articles, otherwise only archaeologists will get anything from the article. I'm a bit more reluctant to fiddle with the wording here as a result because the wording's been reviewed multiple times (though to be fair it has evolved a bit over the course of those reviews) and I hope that mean it's reached some sort of consensus form. The sentences you mention -- I think that's the definition sentence, and the one about military uses? -- are longish, but they're coherent thoughts, and a full stop would break the thought up. Do you have a specific edit in mind for either one?
it was suggested they could have been sally ports: I think we need to say by whom, here.
I'm a bit resistant here, for the same reason as above. I should also say that as far as I know this was Cunnington's suggestion originally (from her excavation of Knap Hill), and she doesn't have the stature in this subfield that someone like Curwen, Piggott, Oswald or Whittle does. As far as I've seen she may get cited but never name checked in the survey works when uses of the enclosures are discussed. Curwen (1930), the other source I give for this, covers the Cunningtons' work at the top of his list of sites, but discusses sally ports and military uses at the end of the paper without mentioning her. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My personal view is that "it has been said..." is weaselly: when we give a statement of opinion, a direct quotation or (as here) an indirect quotation, we should say who we're quoting/crediting. If it's felt inappropriate to credit this to a single person -- for example, because it's a widely held view and not necessarily the first published source's idea -- then we can always do something like "archaeologists have suggested..." and give names and dates in the footnote. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it "archaeologists have suggested". The two (that I know of) who have suggested it are Cunnington and Curwen, both of whom are cited for this; do you feel a note naming them as having proposed the sally port explanation is needed as well? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The B1080 road: this would almost never be written in BrE, which would cut "road", but I can see an argument here as non-UK readers won't know what that number means.
I have enough BrEng left in my speech to have winced when I wrote this, but as you guessed I did it so that non-Brits will understand it. If you can think of a better way to phrase this please say so! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally would, but I had this page and the article open side by side, and wasn't in edit mode -- lazily thought I'd punt it to you before I lost the thread of what I was reading. UndercoverClassicistT·C08:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If all the ditches are equally deep the site "represents one of the greatest Early Neolithic engineering works of East Anglia",: this reads a bit awkwardly. I think it might be best if we start with the proviso that the excavators assumed that all of the ditches were equally deep, which would have required [energetic estimate], making the site [quotation]. On which -- could that energetics estimate (or associated data/bibliography) be useful in the Great Wilbraham article?
Not sure I follow the wording you're suggesting. The source stresses that the ditch depth in the rest of the circuit is unknown; it says "If the Freston ditches (perimeter length 1609 m) were consistently over 2 m deep around both circuits, then this represents one of the greatest Early Neolithic engineering works of East Anglia"; the emphasis on "if" is in the original. That makes it hard for me to see a wording in which I start with an assertion that they do assume that; I felt I had to preserve that "if". Do you think I'm being too picky here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about The excavators calculated that, if the ditches were all equally deep, they would have taken between 2,800 and 4,200 person-days to dig, and stated that the project would have been "one of the greatest Early Neolithic engineering works of East Anglia"? The if is still a bit awkward, to be honest. UndercoverClassicistT·C14:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
taken over 4,200 days of labour: the usual unit here is person-days -- do they assume a certain number of people here?
Changed to "the ditches would have taken between 2,800 and 4,200 person-days to dig"; the source actually uses "workdays". They give estimates based on volume shifted per person per day, and a range; previously I just gave the high end of the range but I now think I should give the low end too -- hence the "2,800". They also give different duration estimates based on the number of people working but that doesn't change the person-days total. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps trace the putative east-west overflow channel on the map?
I did think about this. It's speculation on Carter's part though he does cite the different (alluvial) soil in the relevant areas as evidence; the exact boundaries of the channel are obviously speculative too, and I was hoping the evident gaps in the circle of cropmarks, at east and west, would be obvious to the reader. I'm also afraid that adding it would overwhelm the existing diagram, from which I've already omitted buildings and field boundaries. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all banks and ditches have been levelled by ploughing for many years: I think over many years is more idiomatic here.
Put a date on the Roman period?
Re this and the point above: I meant "long ago", not "over a long period". The source says "potentially ploughed flat by the Roman period", which is unspecific but points to the start, so how about "all banks and ditches have been levelled by ploughing, perhaps as long as 2,000 years ago"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works. I think it's definitely worth clarifying that we're not talking about modern agricultural machinery here, which is so often the cause of destruction to these kind of sites. UndercoverClassicistT·C08:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
spreading across the channel: "the Channel" is capitalised; I would also advise a Wikilink and, ideally, something like "spreading from mainland Europe across the [English] Channel".
early in the process... the process of spreading across the channel? Unless my geography is out of whack, they must have finished the process of crossing the channel to get to Suffolk.
Link and perhaps spell out RAF on first use in body. Do we know why the RAF photographed the area?
Spelled out and linked; no abbreviation given as it doesn't get used again. The source doesn't say why the RAF took the photos, but in checking that source I realized that it does mention the site was partly visible, but not recognized, on photos taken in 1966, so I've added a few words on that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
though this would require excavation to confirm.: suggest a rephrase: it's not clear whether this means "but we didn't know until we excavated it" or "we still don't know because nobody has excavated them".
I made it "will require", which I think solves the problem. Tenses in this situation are a puzzle -- I want the past tense because we're in the past time frame of the assertion, and had there been a later excavation we would still need to express the lack of definite knowledge at the time of the assertion. Using "will" gets around that, but if someone does that excavation something more wordy will be required if we still want to express that it was not known at the time the assertion was made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
construction work on one of the cottages within the enclosure required a watching brief: I think this could be better phrased into layman's terms. Being very picky, a watching brief wouldn't produce finds -- the construction would; the archaeologist's job is to make sure that the finds are noted (and, if necessary, used as evidence to stop the project).
I would suggest putting CE/AD on all relevant centuries, as it's entirely possible that we could be working in the C17th BCE.
Done in some cases; I left the ones where I thought "AD" was obvious from context.
On my (Vector 2022) display, the diagram of the trench is quite a lot higher than the table and discussion, which reference it for locations.
My display is quite wide, and there are only three lines of text below it before the table starts. I agree it would be more naturally positioned lower down but I don't think I can avoid sandwiching if I move it further down. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there was not enough context to be sure of this: don't link "context" here, as you're using the everyday definition ("extra information") rather than the archaeological one ("a bounded location considered to be formed, as far as is discernible, by a single action or process"). You might also consider rephrasing a little to explain exactly what was missing; I don't fully understand what sort of extra context could have helped here.
Unlinked. The source has "Ultimately, we feel that any inference that these Freston examples relate to upright timbers and/or architecture is an interpretation that can only be put forward when we have more contextual information." That feels like a longwinded sentence that says no more than "We don't know enough to be sure"; I don't see much useful rephrasing I can do based on that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the rectangular structure at the northeast corner of the enclosure was also probably constructed some time after the ditches were dug.: I don't know if there's much to be done here, but it struck me that we'd earlier speculated that this was an Anglo-Saxon hall, and my thought was that we must think it's fairly definitely a lot later than the ditches to be making that suggestion.
Is that explicit in the sources -- I'd assumed from our article that it was definitely later, either a bit (so later in the Neolithic) or a lot (so Anglo-Saxon/Early Medieval)? But, as above, if the question really is vague, there's not a lot we can do to clarify. UndercoverClassicistT·C08:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carter (2022) has "Given that several of these structures predate the construction of causewayed enclosures there is no reason to assume that the Freston longhouse and monument were built or used contemporaneously". I think that's clear that the longhouse could have predated the enclosure. I could add a sentence at the end of the second paragraph of the "Site" section making the same point Carter makes, that it could have been either earlier or later, if you think that would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
