Talk:Causewayed enclosure

to illustrate the general appearance of an enclosure (an overhead photo would be good) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan Lake (talk • contribs) 22:29, December 10, 2006

Remove Function Section?
The section "Function" should (imho) be deleted entirely, as it consists only of unreferenced suggestions, assumptions, and speculation. Added: It seems this has been so since 2007 or 2009, seven-to-nine years ago now... some kind of action may be long overdue. clsc (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a terrible idea. Sorry to be so emphatic, but it's an important issue. Why not search for some (redcent) sources that discuss possible functions, eg etc? Doug Weller  talk 18:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Against the Merger of Articles 'Causewayed Enclosure' and 'Circular Ditches'

 * 1. The two given examples of Neolitic sites are discrete groups differentiated by construction and theorised use. Perhaps a link should be included, connecting the two, as items of potentially similar interest. But I would be against going so far as to make them out to be one in the same.
 * 2. Causewayed camps and circular ditches are, I believe, different. --Dumbo1 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3. Accepting modern archaeological theory, it would be unconstructive to merge, as the distinction would be lost and, anyway, under what title should they merge? Ballista 04:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

For the Merger of Articles 'Causewayed Enclosure' and 'Circular Ditches'
Do not merge: From the description given, the ditches seem to be quite different from causewayed enclosures. Whereas the enclosures were raised earthenworks of unknown (if generally defensive) uses, the circular ditches were, well, ditches, and the article doesn't provide any known function. Additionally, if the circular ditches were from the Linear Ceramic culture, which flourished through ~4500 BC, and the causewayed enclosures were being made until ~3000 BC, it sounds like they were from different cultures. However, the circular ditches article definitely needs cleanup and expansion. &mdash;Ryan McDaniel 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sites and general thoughts
Specifically,Rams Hill and Zambujal are definitely not causewayed enclosures. In general, this needs a lot of work, as many of the generalisations are inaccurate (unsurprisingly, given the narrow range of sources). For example, the Danish and Swedish examples aren't on hilltops, and many of the more recently discovered British examples aren't either. Hopefully someone with the time will start with Niels Andersen's work, e.g. his article in and go from there.European Prehistorian (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hindi
A 2409:4064:E10:B942:0:0:6C8:B60F (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)