Talk:Whitehawk Camp

	Whitehawk Camp is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 29, 2021.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 12, 2021 Featured article candidate Promoted

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

Military history: Fortifications / British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Fortifications task force British military history task force European military history task force Historic sites Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Whitehawk was copied or moved into Whitehawk Camp with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Just a note to say I'm hoping to expand this article over the next few weeks, in case other editors are interested in working on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie sounds great. The article could definitely be improved! Mujinga (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to use a structure like the one at Knap Hill, which I've been working on recently; any objections to that? Re sources, I have Healy et al (2011) and Curwen (1934), and have found cheap copies of Curwen (1936) and Ross Williamson (1930) online and have ordered them. I'll look around for the other three, but if you have any of them and are interested in working on the article, let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I see at least one of those is available online. Also, any objections to me using {{cite journal}} (etc.) templates for the references, instead of plain text as they are now? I find it makes it easier to format them correctly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya yes I'm fine with cite templates, in fact that's what I was using when I made some updates. Although maybe we are talking about different things, I don't understand the

MOS:STYLEVAR we can discuss it, for me I don't really mind as long as the referencing is consistent, so if you want to change it go ahead and maybe we can work together to convert the older refs. Just to be clear I don't feel any ownership of this article and I'd love to see it get more detailed, it's such a valuable site IRL (although very much destroyed). I have some of the sources as well, would need to check which ones, they are on a different computer, I think I have some of the recent reports. Knap Hill looks in very good condition by the way and I think the structure would be east to import, the current sections here are not too dissimilar eg History / Background & Site, Excavations / Antiquarian and archaeological investigations. Dropping Lopifalko a line since I see they have been contributing to the article today. Mujinga (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the format I use is called short citations; not sure. Essentially I put the cite templates in the references, and then to make the footnotes simpler I put e.g. "Connah (1965), p. 14." rather than the full {{cite journal}}, which takes up a lot of space if you use it repeatedely in footnotes. I think it's easier on the reader. For web citations I leave the cite in the footnote, so since many existing cites are to the web there wouldn't be much visible change initially -- just the refs would get put in templates. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NAMEDREFS. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I use named refs and they are helpful for the editor; moving the full cite into refs is what I mean by helping the reader. Unless there are objections I'll go ahead and make the change this evening and we can see if everyone is OK with the format. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now done for some of the references. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still collecting sources; I have everything currently listed in the article except Russell (1991), which I've emailed the author for.

• Curwen, E.Cecil (April 1934). "Excavations in Whitehawk Neolithic Camp, Brighton, 1932-3". Antiquaries Journal. XIV (2): 99–133.
• Curwen, E.C. (1936). "Excavacations in Whitehawk Camp, Brighton, Third Season, 1935". Sussex Archaeological Collections. 77: 60–92.
• Drewett, P. (1994). "Dr V. Seton Williams' excavations at Combe Hill, 1962, and the role of Neolithic causewayed enclosures in Sussex". Sussex Archaeological Collections. 132: 7–24.
• Healy, Frances; Bayliss, Alex; Whittle, Alasdair (2015) [2011]. "Sussex". In Whittle, Alasdair; Healy, Frances; Bayliss, Alex (eds.). Gathering Time: Dating the Early Neolithic Enclosures of Southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow. pp. 207–262.
  ISBN 978-1-84217-425-8
  .
• Orange, H.; Maxted, A.; Sygrave, J.; Richardson, D. (2015). "Whitehawk Camp Community Archaeology Project: A Report from the Archives". Archaeology International. 18: 51–55.
• Orange, H., Sygrave, J. and Maxted, A. (2015) An Evaluation Report to the Heritage Lottery Fund on the outcomes of the Whitehawk Camp Community Archaeology Project. ASE Project No: P106. Report No 2015202.
• Russel, M. (1991). An Archaeological Assessment at Whitehawk Neolithic Enclosure, Brighton, East Sussex (Report).
• Russell, M.; Rudling, D. (1996). "Excavations at Whitehawk Neolithic enclosure, Brighton, East Sussex, 1991-1993". Sussex Archaeological Collections. 134: 39–61.
• Sygrave, Jon (2016). "Whitehawk Camp: The impact of a modern city's expansion on a Neolithic causewayed enclosure, and a reassessment of the site and its surviving archive". Sussex Archaeological Collections. 154: 45–66.
• Williamson, R.P. Ross (1930). "Excavations in Whitehawk Camp, Near Brighton". Sussex Archaeological Collections. 71: 56–96.

I am also trying to get a report issued in 1995 by the RCHME: A survey of earthworks at Whitehawk Camp, Brighton, East Sussex. I've emailed Historic England about it and have not yet heard back. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

great! i've converted some refs to the new style eg bangs, secret brighton, Seton-Williams. i was quite sceptical about the Seton-Williams but it's on googlebooks and checks out. Mujinga (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke a little too soon; Drewett and Russell 1996 I have bought online but don't have in hand yet. I'll probably delay working on this significantly till they arrive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list; planning to use this to start expanding the "Excavations" section of the article.

• 1929. Williamson. Bosing survey. Excavated sections of first (inner) and second ditches, and a cut through the third, all in the northeast quadrant of the site. Published in Williamson (1930) (in the list above).
• 1932-3. Curwen. Excavated sections of third and fourth ditches, and a section between them, all in the southwest quadrant of the site. Published in Curwen (1934).
• 1935. Curwen. A long section across all four ditches from outside the fourth ditch to the northwest, to outside it to the southeast. Curwen (1936).
• 1981. Drewett. Radiocarbon dating of some of Curwen's samples; mentioned in Gathering Time p.212.
• 1991. Miles Russell. Rescue dig; excavated southwestern tangent ditch and the area under a road being built, plus test trenches in west side of fourth ditch. Russell & Rudling (1996).
• 1993. Patrick Murray. Watching brief during construction and examination of removed material. Russell & Rudling (1996).
• 2011. Gathering Time project. Radiocarbon dating, including old and new tests.
• 2014. Maxted, Orange, & Sygrave. Community excavation; no significant finds. Orange, Sygrave & Maxted (2015); Orange, Maxted, Sygrave & Richardson (2015); Sygrave (2016).

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga, if you have a moment, could you take a look at where the article is now? I still have some work to do but I think this is getting closer. I plan to add a section on the importance of the site, if I can source it, and make a pass through to be sure material that needs to be in the site summary section is there rather than buried in the section on the individual excavations. Then a copyedit and MoS pass. I also need to rewrite the lead, but I plan to do that last. Some specific points I'd like your take on:

• The material at the end of "Interpretation of other finds" is left over from before I started editing the article.
  • The first uncited paragraph is from Bangs, which I removed as a source because it's self-published (per the Amazon page for it). I'm also dubious about it because I didn't find support for it in Sygrave (November 2016), which is an encyclopedic review of the data from previous excavations. I'm inclined to just remove this.
  • I also think the "twelve remaining examples" paragraph should go; it doesn't seem an important point.
  • The 1587 date would be nice to keep; I have a 1916 article by Hadrian Allcock in which he mentions this reference but does not assert it's the earliest mention, and I can't find anything else to support this, so this should probably go too.
  • I'll keep the "first scheduled ancient monument" factoid, probably in an "Importance" section.
• Do you think the gallery of sketches looks OK? I'd like the text to flow around it but I don't think galleries permit that.
• I'm probably going to cut the quote from Owen O'Donnell unless you feel it should stay.
• The "Whitehawk woman" section will probably get integrated with the site interpretation section.
• What about the "In popular culture"? Perhaps this could be put in with the overall site importance discussion. It seems very minor and had no other coverage I can find, and the artists are not prominent, so I would be OK with cutting it if you agree.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I've run out of time now for this wikisession but can get back to you in the next days. Mujinga (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: i've left some comments below, and just wanted to say it's awesome to see this article improved so much. the site definitely deserves a decent article. i don't have the sources to check so i've queried a few things. i'm now done although i'll return with an update when i've checked the encyclopedia of brighton. cheers, Mujinga (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to find an epub of The New Encyclopaedia of Brighton by Rose Collis and Tim Carder (ISBN: 9780956466402) (which saves me having to ask Hassocks5489 to check their copy). It says this: "'White Hawke Hill', which reaches 396 feet above sea-level, was recorded as such in 1587, and has the earliest known inhabited site in Brighton at the Neolithic Camp - one of 12 known causeways of the Neolithic 'Windmill Hill' culture in Britain". So I'll remove the sentence in the article for now, since it is not the camp but the hill that is being described. If you want to rephrase and re-add, then you have the citation.

Comments

This is looking great! I'll go through it now Mujinga (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "segmented ditches (that is, ditches interrupted by gaps, or causeways, of unexcavated ground)," reads a bit awkwardly to me because of the repetition of "ditches". you could use "excavations" second time round but then would need to replace "unexcavated"!

  I'll see if I can think of a better way to phrase this. I actually rather like the repetition of "ditches" since it's intended as a definition. By the way, this section is taken without much editing from Knap Hill; I was thinking that all the causewayed enclosure articles could use an introductory section like this and there's no need to make them all totally different. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Upper Chalk" - don't know this term, interesting. I would say the hill is part of the South Downs.

  This is the term used in the source but I have some other sources to go through that are more survey-type than journal article, and I'm sure I'll find a better description I can use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "saddle" could be linked to Saddle (landform)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• " It is a little over 1 km from the coast, a distance that is probably unchanged since Neolithic times. " could do a convert for miles/km and if the source says "probably unchanged since Neolithic times" then fine but that seems bizarre to me since we are talking chalk cliffs and would be sure they have retreated over that length of time

  The source says of Whitehawk that "its proximity to the coast, currently just over 1 km to the south, is likely to have altered little, since east of Brighton the offshore sub-surface contours dip so steeply as to suggest that the present retreat of the cliff line here is a relatively recent phenomenon". The second half of this doesn't quite make sense to me -- a recent retreat implies it is more likely that the Neolithic coastline was different -- so I wonder if they missed a "not" after "is"; but the first half is unambiguous. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• i would suggest to move an image of the site higher up, maybe this one - File:Toms Allcroft Whitehawk plan 1916.png, so that people can orientate themselves when reading the description - amazing you have added these images by the way!

  You're right, an image in the site description section is a good idea. Not sure about using that one; I rather like having the three early drawings together. Yes, they're cool, aren't they! A couple of them are from the Oswald et al ref, The Creation of Monuments: Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures, which is well worth getting if you don't already have it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've now added Skinner's sketch near the top of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The camp is one of only twelve remaining examples of a causewayed enclosure from the Windmill Hill culture in Britain and one of three known to have existed in the South Downs." - definitely something to be mentioned in the lead (as I'm sure you were planning to do). and here you mention south downs, that's great, i would suggest doing it earlier

  Yes, agreed, will look to move that reference up.

• cannibalism, wow [edit] to be honest this seems quite controversial, i've never heard of neolithic cannibalism before, surely ritual behaviour is a better explanation, but i don't have access to the sources

  Well, it comes from Curwen, one of the main excavators, and I've seen some negative comments about his "jaundiced view" of the inhabitants, but the sources do quote Curwen, and so far I haven't seen anyone comment on other explanations, though I agree ritual behaviour seems just as likely. Particularly for skulls I don't see that it is likely evidence of cannibalism.

• Inspector of Ancient Monuments is a redirect to Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882
  , not sure if that is worth adding or not

  Linked -- maybe one day it'll be its own article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "development of a new housing project" - the road is called The Causeway, might be worth mentioning if it's in the sources

  Two roads, I think? I was able to figure out the roads from Google Maps; Monument View is the other. I don't think the road names are in the sources, though if I can find a ref we could put it in a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• resistivity survey redirects to Electrical resistance survey
  , I would suggest adding that since I had no idea what it meant

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 2009 Thames Valley Archaeological Services evaluated the area 200 m to the east of the site, at Whitehawk Primary School" so this must be when the school down in the valley was redeveloped, so not really on the site itself but of course you are constrained by what the source says. It's now known as City Academy Whitehawk (council source) ... as an aside that led me to some weird vandalism

  Sounds like you know the area? Any chance of a photo of the current site? Not sure what would be useful, but the current picture is just flat grass with a blurred building. Anything showing remnant earthworks would be nice. From Google Maps it looks like the north-eastern quadrant of one of the banks is still visible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's great Hassocks5489 popped up and can take some fotos - like they said, there isn't much left but a better recent image would be lovely. You are correct to say a bank are still partially visible in that zone. Mujinga (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to comments

• The material at the end of "Interpretation of other finds" is left over from before I started editing the article. The first uncited paragraph is from Bangs, which I removed as a source because it's self-published (per the Amazon page for it). I'm also dubious about it because I didn't find support for it in Sygrave (November 2016), which is an encyclopedic review of the data from previous excavations. I'm inclined to just remove this.

• sure! yes i guess anything useful can be merged in, the rest cut.

  OK, will trim as I add in the summary material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think the "twelve remaining examples" paragraph should go; it doesn't seem an important point.

• ah i like this! i do think it helps to convey the general importance of the site, but if you want to cut it, that's also fine

  OK, I'll try to keep it and source it a bit better.

• The 1587 date would be nice to keep; I have a 1916 article by Hadrian Allcock in which he mentions this reference but does not assert it's the earliest mention, and I can't find anything else to support this, so this should probably go too.

• on a quick google i do see this claim being repeated, it seems it comes from the entry in the encyclopedia of brighton so that would be a reliable secondary source, i need to dig out my copy to check

  Let me know if you find it -- would be nice to have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll keep the "first scheduled ancient monument" factoid, probably in an "Importance" section.

• yeah sounds good

• Do you think the gallery of sketches looks OK? I'd like the text to flow around it but I don't think galleries permit that.

• i like it but would ask for the images to be bigger and actually i already suggested to move at least one higher up so readers can orientate ... would they be better just dotted around the article? also i do want to check the Allcroft plan is definitely about Whitehawk, since the diections to Wannock and Willingdon seem odd. They are both places in Sussex but seem to be very close to each other, so much so that they are both covered by the Willingdon and Jevington entry, so it almost seems this would be a sketch of a site near the Long Man of Wilmington

  I checked and I had totally misread the caption in Oswald! It's a plan of Combe Hill. I did notice that the plan seemed quite different and should have looked more closely; glad you spotted that. I've removed it and asked for the file to be renamed on Commons. Now we're down to two images I agree we can move one up to the site section; I'll do that tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm probably going to cut the quote from Owen O'Donnell unless you feel it should stay.

• fine with it being cut although i do think the 2014 Whitehawk Dig should be mentioned somehwere

  Agreed; there's a bit about it under "Community Archaeology Project, 2014-2015" but I think I can add more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Whitehawk woman" section will probably get integrated with the site interpretation section.

• makes sense!

• What about the "In popular culture"? Perhaps this could be put in with the overall site importance discussion. It seems very minor and had no other coverage I can find, and the artists are not prominent, so I would be OK with cutting it if you agree.

• yeah it is very minor, perhaps it's worth sayign there was a film installation at the museum in 2014, nothing more

  OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

Thanks for all the feedback! I don't know how much more of this I can get to this week; I'm working on something else at the same time, but I should get a bit of time next weekend if not before. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the progress of this article and the updates, although not closely as archaeology is not one of my specialist areas; but I am local and know the area very well, and have taken a number of pics up in the surrounding area over the years and am happy to take more on request. (Existing stuff has been uploaded to the Commons category Whitehawk Hill and its subcat Brighton Racecourse.) It should be said that there is really not a lot to see any more; but if you need any better photos, even if just of the general area, let me know (ideally with reference to existing geographical features) and I will go up there again in due course. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! If you look at a Google Maps satellite view, you'll see a yellow-brown patch of land to the northeast of Manor Hill Road. There's a feature there that I think has to be part of one of the banks, running north-south at the right edge of that patch of land, curving westward towards the top. Any photo that shows a distinct bank of earth would be good since that bank is of Neolithic date; I think that would be more interesting than a picture just showing a patch of land with no way to tell which bits are part of the Neolithic site. I really appreciate the offer! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Weather looks OK at times next week and I have the week off work, so I should be able to get up there quite soon. I think the raised area in question is the bit visible here, between the dog and the bushes in the background (June 2016 image)? Coords roughly 50°49′41″N 0°06′44″W / 50.828135°N 0.112113°W / 50.828135; -0.112113. If so, I walked past that bit last year and there definitely seemed to be a raised section visible. Watch this space for updates! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 00:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dog is standing about here, but if you look here on Google Maps with the satellite view on you'll see the bank I mean. I think it would be to the right of the runner in a white top, off towards those bushes behind the noticeboard near her. If you compare this plan with the Google Maps view I'd say the dog is standing not far from the "G" of "Ground disturbed", and the bank is probably the third ditch (counting from the middle) in the plan. I may be imagining it but the ditch/bank seems to continue closer to the racecourse too, but it looks like that northeast segment is the clearest. If it's covered with bushes it may not be photographable of course. Thanks again for doing this! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed news to report from the south coast ... I took a number of pics last week, which I will upload in the next couple of days to be used as required in the article. The actual field (called "Main Field" (!)) which has the visible remains of the camp was cordoned off to allow sheep to graze as part of a rewilding/wildflower-encouraging effort, which is ongoing until January; but I was nevertheless able to lean over the fence and take quite a few pics of what were clearly banks of earth. I seem to remember one was particularly prominent. The weather was unexpectedly poor and the background wasn't great (all pics face roughly east/northeast, so the Whitehawk estate is visible in the background); so early in the new year I will aim to go up there again, get access to the field (it is open access land) and take better pics from other angles. Anyway, I'll connect my camera to the PC as soon as I can and get them on Commons in the category Whitehawk Camp. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing whatever you have. Thanks again, and no hurry -- this isn't going to be necessary for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded ten pictures to the Whitehawk Camp category just now. As I say, once the sheep have been moved to their new location I'll go up again and try to get clearer shots. I was interested to see that the council have put up a comprehensive information signboard (pic here); when the site is fully open again I'll study this, in case it gives better clues as to what to look for. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's hard to be sure, but I think this one is probably clearest in showing a remaining bank, and it is a clear shot of the background, showing both development and the sea. I think we can caption it "Earth bank at Whitehawk Camp" without having to specify exactly which bank on the plans it corresponds to. I think this is a big improvement over what we have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hassocks5489: I've switched to one of your pictures in the infobox; I meant to do this a couple of weeks ago and got distracted. Thanks again! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga (and anyone else interested), I think this is close to ready for FAC now. If you have time, would you look through and see if you can see any issues? I still have to do a pass through a couple of the journal articles and make sure I haven't left out anything important, and I'll also do a MoS pass though I usually forget something. I have an article at FAC now, but once that's promoted or archived I would like to nominate this if you think it's ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good! I think I'll wait until it's at FAC for a detailed read-through, just to keep my eyes fresh. Best of luck, Mujinga (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Dudley Miles has said he'll take a look, but not for a little while, so I'll probably nominate something else at FAC first; it might be a month or two before this gets there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a massive amount of work, thank you so much. It's unrecognisable since I created it as a little stub. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I love seeing other people work on articles I created, so I hope you're enjoying this article as much as I enjoyed expanding it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly am! Isn't Wikipedia great that way? I'm also pleased to have started Stratford Langthorne Abbey, another place once important now nearly effaced. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It may just be me, but I find "Brighton and Hove" irritating in this context, although I realise it is technically correct. The infobox is better with "Near Brighton", better still with "to the east of central Brighton" in the main text and and in Brighton Racecourse "a mile to the northeast of the centre of Brighton".

  That's the only use of Hove to refer to the place in the article, so I cut it to just "near Brighton" to match the infobox. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is not known what they were used for; they may have been settlements, or meeting places, or ritual sites of some kind." This sounds a bit awkward to me. How about "Their purpose is not known and they may have been settlements, or meeting places, or ritual sites of some kind."

  Done. I've made the same change in Knap Hill; it's definitely a smoother phrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "There may have been a timber palisade along the banks." On top of the banks?

  Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "including both some dates already obtained from the site, and new dates from finds from the earlier digs" I had to read this twice to understand it and I do not think you need it in the lead. Maybe "including several from Whitehawk Camp".

  Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the lead you say that the site may date to 3750 BC and in background that causeway enclosures started around 3700 BC. Of course this is a difficult one as the clash is in the sources.

  The "about 3700 BC" date comes from Oswald (2001); they say "The precise dating of most individual causewayed enclosures remains a very grey area. Nevertheless, the monuments are now established as a phenomenon of the 4th millennium BC in the British Isles, with the available radiocarbon dates suggesting a floruit of around 3,700 to 3,300 BC." This precedes the Gathering Time project, which produced the 3750 Bayesian estimate for Whitehawk. The general introduction to Gathering Time says late 38th century cal BC for their beginning. I'm going to make it "not long before 3700" on that basis. Is that close enough to 3750 BC to resolve the conflict? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not sure saying started 3700 BC is the same as floruit 3700 BC. I would take floruit to mean flourished and to imply an earlier start date, just as if a man is described as floruit 1310-40 he would be assumed to have been born earlier. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It now says "shortly before" 3700 BC -- is that good enough? I don't want to be any more definite than that because floruit is inherently imprecise, which I take it is intentional on the part of the source. I took out one remaining instance of 3700 BC at the end of the background section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As the Neolithic in Britain started 4000 BC should the site be described as early Neolithic?

  Are you suggesting a change to an existing description, e.g. the lead? Or do you just mean that it needs to be mentioned somewhere that it's an early Neolithic site? If the latter, I'm not sure it's necessary -- the characterization as a causewayed enclosure places it in a narrower time range than saying Neolithic or even early Neolithic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We can probably agree to disagree on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a red link to E. Cecil Curwen in the lead and Cecil Curwen in the main text.

  I think that was because his name varies in the sources, but I've made it consistent now. I need to stub that article; there's an obit for him in an archaeology journal that I ran across and now can't find that I'll need to get to make the stub. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You repeat the dates of the first enclosures in Britain at the beginning and end of the background with slightly different dates and areas.

  I've made these consistent; Whittle et al. is the more recent source but re-reading the cited passage they're talking about I see the discussion is about more types of monument than just causewayed enclosures, and the date is better taken from Oswald et al. The rest of the sentence is taken from Whittle and definitely refers to causewayed enclosures. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• " two ditches that are tangent to the outermost circuit" I do not understand this.

  You can get the idea from File:Whitehawk camp sketch 1821 Skinner British Museum Add MS 33658 f. 68.jpg, which shows two lines more or less tangent at the top of the oval, though in fact the tangent ditches known to exist are not where Skinner drew them. Or see File:Whitehawk camp excavation plan 1929 and 1932-1933.png, in which you can see at the bottom left a short section of ditch tangent to the fourth ditch. They're referred to as tangent ditches in the sources, and I think it's a technically accurate description, but I accept it's not easy for a reader to imagine. Can you think of a clearer way to describe them? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Tangent does not seem to be used in the same sense as tangent, where it is defined as a straight line touching a curve. Maybe just say ditches which touch the circuit at one point. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've used your phrasing in the lead, but the sources do say tangent so I want to keep it in the body. I've added a parenthetical definition to the first usage in the body; does that resolve it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it is fine with a definition. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "only one, non-optimal, sample" I take it non-optimal means not good, but I think it is not clear for a general reader.

  Changed to "poor quality". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "constructed some time between 3650 BC and 3500 BC" In the lead you say 3750 to 3600.

  Fixed. This turned out to be two separate mistakes on my part; the 91% confidence was from Knap Hill. Gathering Time gives no confidence level for the dates. The dates themselves are from me misreading the source; it says "between the middle of the 37th century and the end of the 36th century cal BC". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "constructed some time between 3650 BC and 3500 BC" Tangent again. Are you using it in a technical sense as in the wiki article?

  See response above about the use of "tangent". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mollusc samples taken in 1991 implied an open grassland environment at the time the ditch was dug, in contrast to the shade-loving species found in the earlier excavations, and hence a likely later date," Is this the change to grassland due to environmental causes or because Neolithic people were cutting down forests?

  The sources aren't definite about this. Russell & Rudling simply make the assertion about the open grassland based on the mollusca. Healy et al. go a bit further: "Perhaps most significantly, the molluscan fauna, from bottom to top, was overwhelmingly mad up of open-country species, especially those of short-turfed grassland. [They then quote Russell & Rudling's mollusc expert, Thomas, to that effect.] Thomas notes that this contrasts with the composition of the few, predominantly shade-loving molluscs hand-collected from the circuits at Whitehawk during the excavations of the 1920s and 1930s. More significantly, it contrasts with the faunas analysed by him from other causewayed enclosures in Sussex, most of which seem to have been built in short-lived clearings in woodland.... Only at The Trundle is there a hint of clearance prior to construction, and this was followed by regeneration." I don't think this is enough to make any assertion about whether the change in environment was human-caused. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "These are considered to be contemporary with the main period of occupation of the enclosure." Maybe "use" rather than "occupation" as it is disputed whether the site was occupied.

  Good point; done. I've made a couple of other changes of "occupation" to use elsewhere in the article, but I've left the ones in the early excavations because at that point the excavators thought it was indeed a Neolithic occupation. And I don't think modern opinion is unanimous that there was never any settled occupation of causewayed enclosures. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The pottery section is unclear. I think you need to give the dates of early Peterborough and late Beaker and explain that Beaker is Bronze Age. Also you should say whether the quantity found of Beaker, Iron Age and Roman is sufficient to indicate occupation or whether it might just have been dropped by people passing through.

  I've added a couple of phrases about when Peterborough ware and Beaker pottery start to show up. Re occupation, Anna Doherty (the pottery specialist who wrote that section of Sygrave (Nov 2016) says the fact that there at least 500 vessels of the plain/decorated bowl type provides "one of the most tangible indicators that the site was visited or occupied by large groups of people", but she draws no conclusions about the Peterborough Ware or Beaker vessels. I added a sentence based on this to the paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I still find this difficult to follow as you introduce terms and then explain them afterwards. "A few examples of Ebbsfleet ware were found in both 1933 and 1935, mostly in strata near the top of each excavated area: Ebbsfleet ware is the earliest form of Peterborough ware, which is the next stage of development of British Neolithic pottery after plain and decorated bowls, appearing at about 3500 BC.[25][27] Some sherds from Beaker pottery, which does not appear in Britain before about 2250 BC, were found in some places, but there is no evidence of late Peterborough ware styles or early Beaker types," How about "Whitehawk style was followed by Ebbsfleet ware, which appeared around 3500 BC. A few sherds of Ebbsfleet were found in upper strata, but there is then a gap until the Bronze Age around 2250 BC, with some sherds of Beaker pottery." This still sounds to me awkward and could be improved. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've taken some of your wording, and I agree that this needed to be simplified. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• PS I see you say late late 3rd millennium, so 2250 BC is wrong. I think there is excessive extraneous detail in this section which is confusing. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't 3rd millennium 3000-2000 BC? So 2250 BC is correct? Yes re excessive detail; I have cut a bit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes you are right, and it looks fine to me now, but in previous versions you said that there was no early Beaker, which would later than 2250 BC. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Doherty says it's not the earliest form of Beaker ware. I've added that back in at the cost of making it a bit more complicated again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Dudley; I should be able to start looking at these points tomorrow or Friday. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley, checking in to see if you have further comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second set of comments

• More comments - sorry I forgot.

  No problem; no hurry. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been trying to clarify the finds from the different excavations. If I understand correctly, all the ones in the camp were conducted by Curwen and the 1991 dig was of an external ditch. The 'Site and interpretation' section and the analysis by Sygrave appears to refer wholly to the inter-war excavations, apart from the sentence starting "Mollusc samples...". If this is correct I think it should be spelled out.

  I'm not clear what needs clarification here. In the section on the 1991 excavation it says that over a thousand worked flints plus two Neolithic sherds were found, so while almost all the reinterpretation described in Sygrave relates to the interwar finds it's not quite 100%. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The section on the 1991 excavation comes after the description and interpretation. I would have liked clarification in the interpretation section that it relates almost wholly to the interwar finds, but other readers may not agree. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added a sentence to the description subsection of the "Site and interpretation" section, at the start of the second paragraph -- does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "that were worked with flint to create splinters that could be used to create tools such as points" This sounds both clumsy and doubtful. Points might be part of tools but not whole tools (or do you mean pointed tools?), and you link to points as part of weapons, not tools.

  I think points -- e.g. the point of an arrow or spear -- is what is meant. Here's what the source says: "This method appears to be consistent with the Mesolithic groove and splinter technique described by Clark and Thompson (1953) which was used to work antler at Star Carr. It is scored around the circumference of the beam with seven longitudinal grooves following the natural gutters in the surface of the antler, using a flint tool, to produce six splinter blanks. These splinters would usually then be removed and worked into finer tools such as points (Clark 1954)". Perhaps make it "long splinters"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This leaves me more confused. I do not understand what the source means by "tools such as points" and you link to points as parts of weapons. More significantly, the source appears to say that the points are made by an early Mesolithic technique, (implied by the reference to Star Carr) but you appear to say that they are Neolithic. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  A bit of searching for "groove and splinter technique" led me to this abstract which is pretty definite that this would have been done to get "barbed points"; I think points as weapons is indeed what is meant. I don't see a problem in the reference to Star Carr -- presumably the technique would still have been useful in the Neolithic? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "I would read ""This method appears to be consistent with the Mesolithic groove and splinter technique" as implying that the flints were Mesolithic. Does the source specifically say that they date to period of Whitehawk Camp? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the sentence I quoted above is the only one that dates it. It appears this antler was dated by the Gathering Time project; I can't be absolutely sure because GT gives the find index but the other references don't. The description of the antler in GT does match closely, and also identifies it as having been found in the right ditch during the right dig, so as I say I think it's the same one but can't prove it. GT dates this to 3100-2900 cal BC. Given that I don't mention that "groove-and-splinter" or that it's a Mesolithic technique in the article, do you think more clarification is needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Human bones from at least six individuals were found, though since many of the bones were found independently the finds may well have come from more than six people." I do not understand this. "at least" implies maybe more the six so the last part is superfluous, and what does "found independently" mean?

  I was wondering when I wrote that if it was clear. There's some technical language in the source, if I recall, but basically the idea is that if you find six skulls you must have at least six people, but if you find two skulls here and four pelvises somewhere else it might be only four people, since two of the pelvises in theory might belong with the skulls even though they're separated. So a listing of all the bones found they could not have come from less than six people -- presumably some identifiable piece of bone, probably in the skull, was found six times -- but the actual number of different people represented could be, and very likely is, much higher than that. "Found independently" means e.g. that a femur might be found at one location, a tibia fragment elsewhere, and a vertebra in a third location, with no archaeological association and hence probably from different people. Can you think of a simple way to explain all this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• How about "Human bones from at least six individuals were found, although as the bones were in several different locations there were probably more than six people."

  I made it "Human bones from at least six individuals were found, though as many of the bones were found in different locations across the site the finds may well have come from many more than six people." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The camp is one of only twelve remaining examples". I would prefer "known examples" - more may be discovered in the future.

  Done. This was left over from before I began working on the article and I was in two minds about keeping it as the source is not the best possible, but it's reliable and an interesting factoid. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "scheduled ancient monument". The correct term now is scheduled monument, although I am not sure what the term was when the site was originally designated. Also it should be linked.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "later maps show that development continued" This implies previous development, but you have not referred to it.

  Fixed. I thought Sygrave said development overlapped the monument from an early date but apart from the racecourse he doesn't make it clear that that was the case so I've reworded this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Eventually the site became legally protected, but some development still took place without archaeological monitoring, such as the creation of a 70 m (80 yd) earth bank to prevent vehicles accessing the site." Dates for the protection and later development would be helpful.

  Date added for the bank. For the protection, in theory it was protected when it became a scheduled monument, but quoting Sygrave: "This does not appear to have afforded as much protection for the site as was hoped and Ross Williamson comments that it was still under threat from additional allotments and construction projects in the late 1920s". By the second dig permission was apparently required for construction, since that's what brought in Curwen. I would guess that the bureaucracy to require planning permission for development of ancient monuments wasn't working properly, but I don't have any sources I can cite so I left it vague. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You have one link to Cecil Curwen and two to E. Cecil Curwen.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• boser - I suggest a red link to Boser (tool).

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for these; replies above with a couple of questions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third set of comments

• More comments
• You hyphenate south-western but not southeastern.

  Now consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "plans for a road" The photo does not appear to show a road. Was it built?

  Yes; I've added a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The neolithic pottery sherds and the flint tools found included nothing substantially different from the previous season's discoveries" A bit clumsy. Maybe "The neolithic pottery sherds and the flint tools were similar to those found in the previous season's discoveries"

  I made it "were similar to those found during the previous season". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Watching briefs and surveys, 1991–2010. I would reduce or delete this section as nothing significant was found.
• Community Archaeology Project, 2014–2015 I think this section could also be shortened.

  For both this and the watching briefs I think it's worth mentioning the investigations and saying what they did --as with the discussion about Russell below, if the article is about the site and not just the neolithic camp, then all the investigations are relevant even if they found nothing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Results from the southwestern ditch, combined with the molluscan fauna data from the 1991 dig, implied the south-western tangent ditch was of much later date; the radiocabon dates for two samples from that ditch were from the second millennium BC." If I understand correctly, they say that Russell 1991 was of a site 2000 years later and nothing to do with Whitehawk Camp. You have integrated the findings on the site into the article, but this is like writing about a Roman fort and commenting on a modern road as if it was related to the fort. I suggest deleting all references to Russell 1991 and just adding a note that this site was thought to be related to the camp but when it was dated it was found to be 2000 years later.
• This is a first rate article apart from the treatment of Russell 1991, which in my view puts it below FA standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Dudley; I may get to some of these today or tomorrow, but am away from my sources till probably Thursday so will pick this back up then. I'll have to think about the comment about Russell -- to me the article is about the site, not just the camp, and the site includes that late Neolithic or Bronze Age ditch. For Knap Hill I spent some time describing the Romano-British "plateau enclosure"; do you think that's not comparable because there were significant finds? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I take your point. I think that the difference is that in the Knap Hill article it was always clear that you were describing features of different dates, whereas I assumed that the Russell dig was of Whitehawk until the end. One way would be to discuss it under a section in 'Description' with a title such as 'Second Millennium Ditch'.

  That section isn't structured currently in a way that would make that natural -- it would certainly have to go under description, but I don't think that ditch is significant enough for more than a sentence. At the moment it just says "The south-western tangent ditch was dug much later" which is probably all that needs to be said there, but perhaps it could be made more visible? I've moved it to the end of the paragraph, after the mention of the other causewayed enclosures -- does that help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You say it was in the southwest but then that it ran northwest. If it ran northwest from the near the southwest corner of Whitehawk then this should be clarified.
• Also you say "The ditch was found to end about 90 m from the point where it contacted the fourth circuit" If it ended 90 m away then surely it did not contact the circuit? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  For both the above points, see this plan. If you look in the lower left corner, just above where it says "Proposed extension of pulling up ground", you'll see a ditch marked running between the words "Fourth" and "ditch" on the plan. That's the tangent ditch, and it does contact the circuit. I've changed the description to "a ditch, tangent to the fourth circuit, running north-west from the fourth circuit at about the point where the outer part of the 1932–1933 excavations took place"; does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an article about Whitehawk by Jon Sygrave in the Nov/Dec issue of British Archaeology. If you do not have access to it I can email you a copy. (But you might want to get a copy of the whole magazine to see the recommendation in each issue of your C14 dating article.) Dudley Miles (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I saw that article -- it arrived not long after I finished most of the work on this, which was a slightly weird feeling, because having just gone through the papers by Sygrave I already knew everything that was in the article. (I started subscribing to Current Archaeology and British Archaeology earlier this year.) I didn't see the C14 article recommendation though -- can you point me to that page? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It is at the front, on the same page as 'From the editor'. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Just saw it; very cool. Thank you for the pointer! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley, I think I've now replied to all points, including one that was outstanding in the second section above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still find the article confusing. You say at the start that the camp is a causewayed enclosure, which dates to the Neolithic. (I would say early Neolithic, but you disagree.) You give the start date for causewayed enclosures, but not the end date or the dates of Whitehawk itself, both of which I think should be in the lead. Then you say two ditches touch the camp, one dating to 2000 years later, but it is not clear whether this is the one excavated by Russell. His ditch is mentioned in the next paragraph, but I would take it from the context to be part of the causewayed camp. Elsewhere you mention the 1991 dig in contexts which imply it is part of the camp. E.g. "Almost all the finds at Whitehawk Camp were recovered from three excavations between 1929 and 1935, although a 1991 dig recovered some flints and a few pottery sherds." In the section on Russell 1991, you say nothing about the date of the ditch, but if it is the one mentioned in the lead as 2000 years later it is Bronze Age, which you do not say anywhere. If the Russell ditch is Bronze Age, I would have a separate section on Bronze Age ditch and delete the references to it in the rest of the article. Altogether, the article seems to me below your usual very high standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're confused then the article needs fixing; you're a reader with more context for this sort of article than most, so it would be even worse for most readers. I will take another crack at these points today or tomorrow; thanks for the feedback. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley: I've made some changes to try to address these issues. I've mentioned the Bronze Age date of the ditch more clearly in several places, and added dates as you suggest. One thing I think may be contributing to the confusion is that the southwestern ditch isn't a separate ditch; at one end it merges with the fourth circuit, so it can't be treated as a separate site on Whitehawk Hill. Russelll suggests that ditch may have originated in Neolithic times and been recut in the Bronze Age, which again means it has to be described along with the rest of the site. That wasn't mentioned in the article, so I've added that, but I wonder if it is still not clear enough that that ditch is continuous with the fourth circuit, like the projecting line on a sigma: σ. Let me know what else you think needs to be done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth set of comments

• " the date of the northeastern tangent ditch is not known" Is this because it has never been excavated? If so, I think you should say so.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mollusc samples taken in 1991 implied an open grassland environment at the time the ditch was dug, in contrast to the shade-loving species found in the earlier excavations, and hence a likely later date, and two samples from the ditch have since been dated to the second millennium BC." This seems unnecessarily complex. How about "Mollusc samples in the Bronze Age ditch implied an open grassland environment, in contrast to the shade-loving species found in the Neolithic camp."

  Done, except that I didn't use the word "camp"; the recent sources avoid the word, presumably to avoid implying it was definitely a settlement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Almost all the finds at Whitehawk Camp were recovered from three excavations between 1929 and 1935, although a 1991 dig recovered some flints and a few pottery sherds." for clarity maybe "Almost all the finds at Whitehawk Camp were recovered from three digs between 1929 and 1935, although a 1991 excavation of the Bronze Age ditch recovered some flints and a few pottery sherds."

  Done; I think that's helpful in clarifying the distinction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some Bronze Age sherds from Beaker pottery were found as well" In the camp or the Bronze Age ditch?

  The discussion I'm citing there is only about the Neolithic ditches; I've clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "and a few flints may post-date the Neolithic usage" Not sufficient to suggest later occupation, but probably casual losses after the camp went out of use?

  I would think so, but without some comment to that effect in the sources I don't think I should add anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "the climate in neolithic times must have been wetter" Do you think "neolithic" as an adjective should be lower case or is this a typo?

  Typo; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You mention the racecourse, but not so far as I can see not the road going through the site shown on the 1916 map and the 1929-33 plan.

  I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. I think that road is more of a path till a more modern road was built in 1935, but I don't have a source for that -- just looking at old OS maps. Are you saying it should be mentioned in the site description section? I only mention the racecourse there because of the destruction of the round barrows. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the 1916 plan there appears to be a regular road labelled Whitehawk Road. It is still labelled Whitehawk Road in the later plan, but the southern part now looks like a track whereas the northern part curiously still looks like a road but crosses the extended racecourse. I think any reader who like me looks at the plans will be puzzled that the road is not mentioned in the article, but this cannot be helped if there are no sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been looking into this. It will be difficult to source this explicitly, and I haven't had any joy with my Brighton book sources so far; but just for info, what happened was that the Whitehawk and Manor Farm housing estates were developed from the early 1930s, which caused a new main road to be built from the Eastern Road/Kemptown area of town to replace Whitehawk Road. This road, which was rather narrow and steep, was then downgraded to a track and renamed "Whitehawk Hill Road" so that the name Whitehawk Road could be reused for the spine road of the Whitehawk estate. The new main road, Manor Hill, was built along the course of an old southeast–northwest farm track from the bottom end of what became the Whitehawk estate (where there had been some modest ribbon development c. 1880) to the point at which the old Whitehawk Road had turned through 90 degrees to join Freshfield Road. All the land was originally part of Manor Farm, and the track ran across the farmland to connect the farmhouse to Freshfield Road. The 1929 and 1932–33 excavation map shows the transition between the downgrading of Whitehawk [Hill] Road and the completion of Manor Hill. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Very interesting. So the later plan which appears to show the racecourse extending over the old Whitehawk Road is misleading? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the plan is accurate: the section which extends south of Manor Hill parallel with the old road is the pulling-up area beyond the finishing post where the horses are brought to a stop after finishing the course. On this Google Map view, it can be seen as the long, narrow area south of Manor Hill which stops just north of Whitehawk Hill transmitting station. This photo I took last month, looking south towards the transmitter from just south of Manor Hill, shows it more clearly. I am standing on what used to be Whitehawk Road, which has deteriorated significantly since it was closed to road traffic. The pulling-up area extends as far as the end of the white barriers in the distance. With reference to the plan, the inner ditch and second ditch are just to my right, but they have been completely obliterated by the racecourse. The area of the "excavations 1932–33" at the bottom of the plan is further in the distance, but likewise nothing can be seen now, sadly. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I should have more time tomorrow to follow up on this, but FYI this is the Jon Sygrave report; he gives snips from every single OS map of the site and discusses the changes map by map. Search for “Fig. 15” in the PDF and you’ll find it in the ToC, then the next hit is the discussion, then the maps are in the appendix. Maybe we can use these to source a clearer description of the site and roads? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you look at Figs. 18 and 19 in the Sygrave report, you'll see the 1931 OS map followed by the 1953 OS map. The 1931 map shows the old Whitehawk Road running down southsouthwest. The 1953 map shows the pulling up ground as a long rectangle next to that road, which is unreadable but you can see there's an extra word in its name -- it's now Whitehawk Hill Road. (The next map, 1961, is a bit more readable.) You can also see the new road, Manor Hill, running right through the site to the southeast. Dudley, what rewording do you think would make this clearer to the reader? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you settle this with Hassocks5489? You both understand it much better than me. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I will come up with some suggested wording in the next 24 hours or so. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Whitehawk Camp was listed as a Scheduled Ancient Monument in 1923,[46] but the designation did not provide the site with legal protection against development.[47] By 1928 parts of the site were overlaid by allotment gardens and by land used by the local race course." This seems to imply that the allotments and race course date to 1923-28, but you say the race course was earlier.

  Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• " A review of the snail shells found in the ditches concluded that conditions must have been much damper at the time of the occupation" You say this above.

  See comment below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "a piece of sarsen used to grind grain" A millstone?

  I think I'd link to quern-stone rather than millstone, but I avoided it because it's not a well-known word. Would linking "used to grind grain" to quern-stone be a good compromise? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "and the snail shells indicated that the climate must have been wetter during the Neolithic" And a third time!

  I had some trouble with this because I wanted to report the conclusions of the individual digs, but of course with regard to the mollusca they all three drew exactly the same conclusion. I've added a bit to try to clarify that this is conscious; does that work? I could cut it but these are sections on the digs, not on the site, so I thought they should be included. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article seems to me vastly improved, although I would, as I said, prefer the 1991 dig confined to its own section. In 'Site and interpretation', you mention the 1991 dig in the 'Description' sub-section and I am not clear whether the finds sections include 1991 Bronze Age ones. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm reluctant to separate the 1991 dig completely because Russell felt at least part of the ditch was originally cut in the Neolithic, and e.g. in Gathering Time this is taken as a possibility though they point out some counter-evidence too. It connects directly to the Neolithic fourth circuit too. The 1991 dig wasn't done with the intention of exploring a Bronze Age ditch; Russell thought he was exploring a Neolithic site, so from the investigators' point of view it's not separate. Can you suggest a way I could separate it that would respect these points? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the problem is that in the 'Site and interpretation' section it is still not clear what refers to the Neolithic and what to the Bronze Age. 'Description' presumably refers to both, but you could perhaps have a sub-section 'Neolithic Whitehawk Camp', with pottery and other finds as sub-sub-sections, and a sub-section 'Bronze Age ditch', in which you explain the points above. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dudley, I'm not ignoring this; I'll come back to it in the next few days. I see why you want this. I just have to make sure that I don't misrepresent the site or the dig reports if I do this -- Russell did not report his work as "excavation of a Bronze Age ditch", so I have to make that clear to the reader. More soon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley, replied above, and thanks again for the help; you've made a big difference to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley, I've finally had a go at this. I moved everything in the Description section that related to the Bronze Age ditch into its own paragraph at the end of that section, and I changed the other section headings to clarify that they only refer to the Neolithic site. Does that move us towards what you're looking for? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks fine to me now. Two minor points. 1. You said that Russell expected the ditch to be Neolithic. I think this is worth spelling out. 2. I think it would also be helpful to state specifically that the 2014-5 excavations did not make any significant finds. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. I had a bit of trouble with point 1 because of course Russell doesn't say "I assumed it was Neolithic going in but I was wrong"; he just describes it as the last phase of the Neolithic camp, though he does give the mollusc data as evidence of a later date. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hassocks5489, Dudley, the remaining issue is whether/how to describe the road that passes through the site. Its path is clear on the 1935 excavation map. I just read through and I'm not sure there's a natural place to give additional details -- the road itself is not interesting; it's only interesting in that it caused the 1935 dig. Do we need to provide more description? Would a reader want to understand the exact path of the road? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it needs mentioning because it is prominent on the 1916 map. Also "In 1935, plans for a road to cross the site" might be taken to imply that there was no road before. Clarifying that this was a change to an existing road should cover the point. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I couldn't get to this in the end on Boxing Day. I think that wording looks fine and is an accurate summary; it is pretty much what I would have written. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]